According to The Fiscal Times; while R Presidential nominee Donald Trump had begun his usual public pablum attack against other speakers featured at the DNC Presidential Nominating Convention who he felt had maligned him, including his D opponent Hillary Clinton, former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Ret. General John Allen, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan from July 2011 to February 2013; as of 19 hours ago; he had yet to attack Gold Star father Khizr Khan. Trump Lashes Out at DNC Critics — Except for One
According to The Hill, as of a couple of hours ago, he still has left Mr. Khan alone. But this doesn’t mean, he left the offensive speech unscathed. Only this time, instead of going after the speaker of the truth-which-stung; rather, Trump went after the man’s wife. Trump responds to Muslim DNC speaker: ‘I’d like to hear his wife’
The comments posted on The Hill are laced with xenophobia and hatred of anything Islam, making their authors easily identifiable as Trump acolytes. Both he and they obviously view the world in the same scary us-versus-them way. And they both miss the obvious point.
Without detailing my life story, let me just say, Mr. and Mrs. Khan are not the first Muslim couple from Pakistan whose demeanor I have been in a position to observe. Perhaps this explains why, rather than seeking out a telltale sign of the stereotypical mute wife pictured in the minds of Trumpettes; I watched Mrs. Khan through the eyes of a mother whose own heart would stop beating if I was to lose one of my sons.
Trump attributed her silence to Muslim female subservience. On the other hand; not surprisingly, I saw a woman who, on the verge of publicly weeping, struggled to retain the privacy of her grief while at the same time proudly looking on as her resolute husband shared recollections of the death of their beloved son for the good of this nation. (Would Trump the Magnificent have us believe he didn’t see her eyes were filled with tears? I mean, I know FOX News did not broadcast the speech, live – Here’s What Fox News Aired Instead of the Speech by Fallen Muslim Soldier’s Father but surely, by now, everyone who missed the live event knows what was said and, has taken a peek.)
Whenever I detected her husband’s subtle touch, or glance, I didn’t automatically pronounce, see, he’s the boss in this Muslim coupling, keeping his wife in her place. Rather, I thought, what profound tenderness, and devotion. I marveled that even addressing the DNC (and the world), this man is not sidetracked from comforting his wife, ever aware she still grieves for her lost child.
Yes, unlike Donald Trump, I watched and recognized their shared pain, manifested differently. I listened and considered the stark distinction between the sentiment expressed here, and the overarching malicious meme of the Trump candidacy.
I cried.
UPDATE at 21:27: Well, well, well. I posted this original article at 2:13 PM EDT. Politico’s Morin published Trump rebuts Khizr Khan: ‘I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard’14 minutes after that. In it, she quotes Trump from a taped interview with George Stephanopoulos to be broadcast tomorrow, in which Trump expands his criticism of Mrs. Khan.
But Trump also said Ghazala Khan looked “like she had nothing to say.” He added, “She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”
So, I was correct in positing Trump’s seemingly innocuous “I’d like to hear his wife” was just another not-so-thinly-veiled guiding of the masses to augment the pernicious stereotype, all Muslim men subjugate ‘their’ women. And, from the same article, there was this.
Mrs. Khan was interviewed by MSNBC on Friday, the day after the convention ended. “She said she didn’t speak at the convention because she is still overwhelmed by grief.” (Emphasis added by jbjd.) Again, lacking Trump’s anti-Muslim game plan made me right, all along.
Please don’t be misdirected into believing that U.S. Senator (R-TX) Ted Cruz’ latest ‘birth certificate’ shenanigans have put his eligibility matter to rest.
It is Friday, January 8, 2016. Over-sized headlines on Drudge proclaim in huge letters that Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has produced his mother’s birth certificate showing she was born in the U.S.A., implying this alone establishes his Constitutional eligibility to be President (as a natural born citizen). But trust me; thus far he has failed to provide documentary evidence that supports a rational legal conclusion he is even a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born. It’s true. It’s all here.
First, a brief legal primer on determining U.S. citizenship at birth, for a child born in Canada.
The status of U.S. citizenship is determined by examining the U.S. Code in effect at the time of birth. Cruz was born in 1970, in Canada. Does that make him a U.S. citizen? The applicable U.S. Code says,
U.S. citizenship to a child born in Canada [in 1970] whose father [admittedly] is not a U.S. citizen is conditioned on both 1) the U.S. citizenship of the mother; and 2) her having lived in the U.S. for five (5)10 (ten) years, two (2) five (5) of which must have occurred past the age of 14. (8 U.S.C. 1401, Act 301 (g))June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235)
Thus, at a minimum; an application of facts to law that will determine whether Cruz is a U.S. citizen would require at least two additional documents: his birth certificate, and the birth certificate of his mother. And as this Salon article written by Steven Lubet, the Williams Memorial Professor of Law at Northwestern University demonstrates; the fact that determining his citizenship would require both birth certificates has been public knowledge since at least as far back as 2013, the year Senator Cruz took office.
Ted Cruz’s origins continue to haunt him
[subtitle omitted by jbjd]
by Steven Lubett
…
In order to fulfill his promise to the voters, Cruz must therefore submit proof that he is a U.S. citizen, which will be trickier for him than for most people. Cruz has thus far released only his Canadian birth certificate, which confirms that he was born in Calgary, Alberta, in 1970, and additionally states that his mother was born in Wilmington, Dela. The second part is crucial – Cruz’s only claim to U.S. citizenship through his mother – but it is also hearsay. The birth certificate is primary evidence of Cruz’s own birth, but the entry about his mother merely records her assertion to the Alberta Division of Vital Statistics. Even though I don’t personally dispute what he says, “My mother said so” is not what is usually meant by “proof.”
How, then, can Ted Cruz prove his U.S. citizenship to the satisfaction of the Canadian authorities? He could submit his passport, or perhaps the document called a Consular Certificate of Birth Abroad (if his parents obtained one), but those would have the same hearsay problems as his birth certificate. The only sure-fire evidence, therefore, would be his mother’s birth certificate, presumably issued when she was born in Delaware.
In an article entitled “Dual citizenship may pose problem if Ted Cruz seeks presidency,” The Dallas Morning News reported in August 2013, “For the first time, Cruz released his birth certificate Friday in response to inquiries from The Dallas Morning News.” An image of the document appeared on the site. Information had been filled in on what looks like an official government form captioned: “Division of Vital Statistics, Department of Health Edmonton, Certificate of Birth.” Id. On the line for mother’s birthplace, someone had typed “Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.” Id.
At this same time, Cruz did not release the other document we have established is vital to his U.S. citizenship validation, which is the U.S. birth certificate for his mother.
(Please click on that link above to The Dallas Morning News from August 2013; and keep in mind, we’re talking about events which occurred three years ago. Then, scroll down the page till you reach the embedded Daily Caller video entitled “Trump plays birther card on Ted Cruz”; it shows a clip from of ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos broadcast in August 2013, featuring a segment with Jon Carl on the ground at the Iowa State Fair. Play that whole video. It opens with Stephanopoulos: “Every August the Iowa State Fair features pork tenderloins, deep-fried Twinkies, a whole bunch of ambitious politicians with the White House in their sights. Forget that it’s three years before the next election, it’s never too early, Presidential hopefuls are out in force across the Hawkeye state this week-end.” Then, it cuts to Carl, at the Iowa State Fair. “We even ran into Donald Trump out here… he says that he might run.” What follows is Carl’s exchange with Trump. Carl asks for Trump’s “assessment of the field,” and goes down the names. “Ted Cruz.” Trump loves his opposition to Obamacare. Then, Carl asks about “Trump,” citing his history of questioning Obama’s birth certificate. This leads to a question from Carl about Cruz’ eligibility, pointing out, Cruz was born in Canada, but his mother was an America citizen. Trump’s abbreviated response: “Look, that will be ironed out…”)
Three years later, Presidential candidate Trump raises the specter his fellow candidate, Cruz, might have a problem with Constitutional eligibility. Days later, on January 8, 2016, in the article linked on Drudge‘s headline, Breitbart announced, “The Cruz for President campaign provided Breitbart News exclusively with the birth certificate.” The ‘birth certificate’ they were talking about is for Cruz’ mother; an image of what purports to be that document appeared on the site. Information had been filled in on what looks like an official government form captioned: “State of Delaware, Standard Certificate of Birth.” Id. On the line for mother’s birthplace, someone had written “Wilmington, Delaware.” Id. For whatever reason, Breitbart provided readers with no explanation as to how the Cruz campaign transmitted this ‘document’ to them. The source code for the image displayed in the article contains only a Breitbart electronic trail; it is posted on the Breitbart Scribd page, with no visible attribution to the Cruz campaign.
In no particular order of import; here are just a few of the material facts which trouble me about this ‘Ted-Cruz’-mother’s-U.S.-birth-certificate-presentation’ and have aided my analysis that this is part of a broader well-orchestrated dog-and-pony show. (I am sure I will write additional columns on this issue, as time (and paid employment) allow.)
PROBLEM #1: Under the U.S. Code, any mock-ups like this coming not from the U.S. Senator, or from “Mr.” Cruz, but out of the Cruz for Presidentcampaign only constitute paid political advertising.Further, these materials must be identifiable to the viewer as sponsored by the campaign.
PROBLEM #2: This 2016 exclusive presentation on Breitbart marks the first time an image of the birth certificate of Cruz’ mother has become available for public display, notwithstanding as explained above; since he was born in Canada 1) her birth certificate is required to establish whether he is a U.S. citizen; and 2) questions as to his U.S. citizenship have dogged him since at least as far back as 2013. But even with the crescendo of eligibility speculation beginning at least as far back as then; as we said, the only evidence he produced to establish his U.S. citizenship was his birth certificate. And that was it for the next three years. Then, in February 2015, with his run for the Presidency all but guaranteed; The Dallas Morning News reported that rumors of ineligibility resurfaced. Now, with the stakes for establishing his eligibility raised considerably; you might think a smart lawyer like Cruz would produce his mother’s U.S. birth certificate as evidence he was legit. Well, you would be wrong. Because all he coughed up that same birth certificate for baby boy Cruz he had offered up to the same newspaper three years earlier! Id.
PROBLEM #3: Under both the U.S. Code and recent holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting false political speech; unless intended for an unlawful purpose like defrauding the government; pretending to a media outlet that a facsimile of an ‘identification document’ like the image of a birth certificate (or of a form of renunciation of Canadian citizenship) is real, does not violate the law, precisely because as a matter of law, it identifies nothing. Think about it this way. Let’s say, you are applying for a civilian job and, in order to verify your educational background, your prospective employer asks you to provide an “official” school transcript. You wouldn’t go to your school; have them copy your records and hand them over to you; and then deliver these to the employer. No; that’s not “official.” Because you could have tampered with the information in your possession and under your control. Rather, you would likely ask your school, in writing, to mail these records to that employer, on your behalf. (You might also satisfy the request to provide an official transcript by having the record holder place the documents into an envelope and ‘sealing’ the flap with embossing, which you can then hand to the company.)
How might ‘inquiring minds’ similarly obtain official identification documentation with respect to Cruz’ U.S. citizenship status? Well, they might try obtaining the relevant information from Canadian officials. Indeed, the The Dallas Morning News said they tried to obtain such ‘official’ verification of Cruz’ U.S. citizenship status way back in August 2013, in the same report in which they posted the image Cruz provided, of his Canadian birth certificate with his mother’s birthplace filled in as U.S.A.
Officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada said that without a signed privacy waiver from Cruz, they cannot discuss his case. Id.
And, today, three years later, BreitbartNews echoed the Dallas News’ frustration at being unable to access Cruz’ identifying information:
Canadian immigration authorities could not provide Breitbart News with additional documents, citing Canadian privacy laws. Id.
So, for three years and counting; why hasn’t Cruz provided either of these media outlets with the necessary waiver authorization so that they could directly obtain his official identification documentation?
PROBLEM #4: Despite the fact spelled out in PROBLEM #1 that this maternal ‘birth certificate’ displayed on Breitbart has no legal bearing on Cruz’ U.S. citizenship status inasmuch as it was issued by his Presidential campaign; the timing of the campaign’s release is nonetheless way off. Coincidentally, Presidential Candidate Carly Fiorina hinted just the other day she found a ‘timing’ dilemma in another aspect of Cruz’ citizenship brouhaha, which tends to bolster my present ‘Breitbart timing’ observation.
Interviewed on January 7, 2016 by FOX’s Greta Van Susteren, Ms. Fiorina was asked to comment on what Susteren characterized as Cruz’ eligibility dispute, begun by Trump and joined publicly just that day by Sen. McCain, who agreed there was some legitimacy to the issue because Cruz was born in Alberta, Canada “to an American mother and a Cuban father.” She asked where Fiorina stood on this “discussion.” Fiorina replied, “Well, I don’t know all the particulars but I would say this. I find it odd that Senator Ted Cruz did not renounce his dual Canadian citizenship until 2014, when it became clear he was running for President.” Van Susteren asked, “Meaning what, meaning that he wanted to be a Canadian until 2014, is that what that means?” The candidate clarified, “I don’t know; I think you oughta ask him.” http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/video-fiorina-questions-why-ted-cruz-took-so-long-to-renounce-his-dual-canadian-citizenship/
I have a theory on the answer to Ms. Fiorina’s question.
Here is the full title of the article by Professor Lubett, published by Salon in September 2013, including the sub-heading I omitted above, followed by the ‘money’ excerpt from that article: (all emphasis added by jbjd)
Ted Cruz’s origins continue to haunt him
What’s really keeping Ted Cruz from finally renouncing his Canadian citizenship? An expert investigates
…
What is keeping Ted Cruz from finally renouncing his Canadian citizenship?
Perhaps Cruz simply hasn’t gotten around to it. In fairness, the Canadian government requires more than a simple shout-out before canceling somebody’s citizenship. The aspiring ex-Canadian has to pay a fee of $100 and submit an official “Application to Renounce Canadian Citizenship,” which could be a bother for someone with a busy schedule of Tea Party meetings and lectures for the Heritage Foundation. On the other hand, the renunciation form is pretty simple. There are only 12 questions on the application, and most of them request basic information such as name, address and date of birth, all of which could be handled by a staffer.
There is one section, however, that could cause Cruz some trouble, and perhaps that is the reason for his delay. Question 5 instructs the applicant to “attach proof” that he is (or will become) a citizen of a country other than Canada. That may seem like it is none of Canada’s business, but in fact the requirement follows from important principles of international law – including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – which call upon governments to protect individuals from becoming stateless. Of course, Canada’s requirement of proof was not established with U.S. senators in mind, but it does reflect an admirable intention to ensure that all individuals have national rights in at least one country. And in any event, it is up to Canada to decide how and in what manner its citizenship may be annulled – the U.S. has similar rules – and Cruz has no choice but to follow the necessary protocol.
Recall that the The Dallas Morning News reported in August 2013; problems were surfacing related to Cruz’ dual citizenship. Id.
The circumstances of Cruz’s birth have fueled a simmering debate over his eligibility to run for president. Knowingly or not, dual citizenship is an apparent if inconvenient truth for the tea party firebrand, who shows every sign he’s angling for the White House….Two visits in recent weeks to Iowa, the first state to winnow the field of presidential candidates, set off a fresh flurry of commentary on the issue. He heads to New Hampshire, another early voting state, on Friday — another strong sign that he’s eyeing a 2016 run.
The Morning News article went on to say that Cruz announced he would resolve the problem immediately by having his team of lawyers research how to “renounce” his Canadian citizenship. Id. And, inasmuch as Professor Lubett’s article in Salon pointed out, renouncing his Canadian citizenship required proving he had citizenship elsewhere, presumably in the U.S.; he would have to establish at this point, his mother was an American citizen. In short, he would need to produce his mother’s birth certificate before officials in Canada could process his Canadian citizenship renunciation. (Lubett also pointed out; Cruz could have used a U.S. passport, which is issued by the State Dept., to prove he is a citizen of the U.S. However, in order to obtain a U.S. passport, one must present evidence of being a U.S. citizen. And, inasmuch as Cruz’ birth certificate evidences he was born in Canada; he could not prove to our State Dept. he had inherited U.S. citizenship through his mother, without producing her birth certificate, anyway.)
This means, the birth certificate for Cruz’ mother was in his possession at the latest, before the date on that letter-cum-Certification of Renunciation.
In sum; before Cruz could obtain the Canada letter-cum-Certification of Renunciation he provided to The Dallas Morning News in May 2014, he must have had possession of his mother’s birth certificate, and it must have shown, she was a citizen of the U.S.A.
So, here’s the problem associated with the relationship between the timing Ms. Fiorina pointed to in her interview with Greta, of Cruz’ alleged renunciation of Canadian citizenship in [May] 2014; and his campaign’s distribution to Breitbart the mock-up of his mother’s birth certificate two years later, in January 2016. Questions as to his status as a U.S. citizen centered on more than his dual-citizenship. This meant that just renouncing his Canadian citizenship in May 2014 only solved some of those pending Constitutional eligibility problems. The other questions related to his eligibility status centered mostly on whether he was born a U.S. citizen, which determination you now know could have been all but resolved as soon as he produced the birth certificate for his mother. And, based on the date that appears on the Canada letter-cum-Certification of Renunciation provided to The Dallas Morning News; we know he held that document by May 2014.
Then, why hasn’t he made that birth certificate available to The Dallas Morning News, or Breitbart, or any other media outlet, between May 2014 and now?
Today, RCP posted an interview by CNN’s Jake Tapper, on Ted Cruz’ campaign bus. Tapper asked Carly’s question about the timing of Cruz’ renunciation. Let me explain how that has opened up the proverbial can of worms.
The important exchange is 01:10-3:20.
So, what’s so bad about that? I’ll tell you.
Ted Cruz is a smart and politically ambitious man. Here’s the Cruz bio that appears on the Congressional site: graduated Princeton University, B.A., 1992; graduated Harvard University, J.D., 1995; Law Clerk to Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist; Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Director of the Office of Policy Planning, Federal Trade Commission; Solicitor General of Texas 2003-2008; lawyer; elected to U.S. Senate 2012. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C001098 And as I pointed out earlier; The Dallas Morning News raised Cruz’ dual citizenship status during the 2013 Iowa State Fair, where the R Presidential nominee wannabes, including Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, had ‘launched’ their campaigns.
There is no way in hell that this man hadn’t fully researched his U.S. citizenship pedigree long before August 13, when The Dallas Morning News pointed out to him, he was likely still a Canadian. Id.
But I noticed something else that stinks about this eligibility play.
On January 7, Heidi Cruz – she’s Managing Director at Goldman Sachs – was interviewed on Boston Herald Radio. Here’s what she said about the eligibility issue (10:00-11:10):
Ted is indisputably a U.S. citizen. He is a natural-born citizen. … He fits that definition without a question.
(Note in that segment, Heidi did not say, Ted is a U.S. citizen ‘because his mother is a citizen.’ However, she does mention maternity in reminding the host that Mitt Romney’s father George – he ran for the R Presidential nomination against Nixon in ’68 – was also a citizen, “born in Mexico, but to a mother who was a U.S. citizen.”)
Now, watch her husband’s January 7 responses to questions about eligibility from Mark Halperin of Bloomberg Politics. (I cannot embed this; but watch from 00:50-02:00):
The very first Congress, in defining a natural born citizen said, the child of a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen.
(Note that just as soon as Cruz ended that sentence he was off on another tangent, no pause, no breath. He did not interject, ‘therefore, I am a natural born citizen because my mother is a U.S. citizen’ (or leave any room for Halperin to ask that next logical question.)
And, in today’s video, with Jake Tapper; Cruz began by repeating the party line about his U.S. citizenship, sort of:
The Constitution and federal law are clear. The child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen.
However, Tapper kept on the subject as the exchange continued, asking whether his parents ever voted in Canada, clearly referencing the fact, voting records indicate she was on such a list, meaning, she would have had Canadian citizenship at the time. Cruz answered:
My mother didn’t, because she was a U.S. citizen, and my mother, look, the internet has all sorts of fevered swamp theories…
So, for the first time during any of these interviews, he now claims, “my mother was a U.S. citizen,” apparently in order to quell Tapper’s voting list reference. But notice, he begins another revelation, “and my mother…” and then stops himself, quickly pivoting to something else. But Tapper keeps going until he brought up Carly’s question. Now, listen to what Cruz said right after that:
Look, my mom was born in Wilmington, DE, was an American citizen by birth, she’s been an American citizen all 81 years of her life…
Question: What happened between January 7, when Mr. & Mrs. Cruz would only answer questions from the press as to the candidate’s eligibility, with vague generalities about the law; and January 10, when the candidate specifically alleged, ‘My mother was born in Delaware, USA’?
Answer: Breitbart posted the campaign’s mock-up of Cruz’ mother’s birth certificate on January 8 and Jake Tapper asked why Carly Fiorina thought it ‘odd” that he renunciated his Canadian citizenship in 2014.
As I said, Carly Fiorina hit a home run by positing that question…
Business is booming for the Trump/Coulter/Drudge troika, but I would bet that millions of consumers still have no idea they are the unwitting tools of the tricks of the TCD trade.
Yep, Ann “how-many-fucking-Jews-do-they-think-there-are-in-the-United-States” Coulter is BFF not only with Donald “laziness is a trait in blacks” Trump but with Matt “they-came-up-with-the-name-ISIS-to-be-confused-with-Issa” Drudge, too. Indeed, as you can see for yourself in this clip; the author of ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hellhole calls Drudge “blessed.” (The way in which the TCD troika manipulates what you think you know will be explored in another posting. But note that in this video, Coulter hints at Drudge’s subliminal power to lead the blind masses: “I’m just terrified,” she admits, “If Matt Drudge ever goes on vacation, they’re going to pass amnesty in the dead of night.”)
I had suspected for months, Coulter and Trump were joined at the hip, even before she confirmed their partnership by introducing him at his ‘coming out’ in Iowa.
I was alerted to their symbiotic relationship by his newly ramped up anti-immigrant meme. For example, on June 16, Trump proclaimed, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said in the speech. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” June 16. So, I checked and, not coincidentally, Coulter’s ¡Adios America! came out two weeks earlier, on June 1. In fact, as you can see in the next video; an interviewer from BBC’s Newsnight program noticed the striking similarity in their language with respect to people with brown skins. He asked whether Trump took his reference to “Mexican rapists” from her. As you can see; Coulter proudly reveals, Trump initiated contact with her before her book came out to solicit an advance copy.
(IMPORTANT NOTE:In the BBC video, Ms. Coulter alleged ¡Adios America!, the sole focus of which book is immigration, is well-annotated. However, six months earlier, in June; Bill Maher pointed out on his show that the ‘stats’ in her book seemed to him to be way ‘off.’ Specifically, he asked where are the “stats” proving that Mexicans entering this country are “rapists”the discrepancy between the 11,000,000 illegal immigrants the government estimates are living here; and her figure of approximately 30,000,000. Now put on the spot by someone who had not only read her book but also was willing to ‘call her out’ on its contents; she conceded, it’s impossible to get government figures – ‘they don’t keep them’ – so she found alternative means. And, as you can see for yourself in this video from Maher’s show; Ms. Coulter’s alternative means of reaching the real numbers of illegal immigrants living here included an econometric calculation invented by a couple of financial analysts from Bear Stearns. (I am not kidding. You can read the transcript on YouTube, below the video.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhhgrzqN6gI
But what cemented for me Trump’s unholy alliance with Coulter was his gross misrepresentation of the scope of illegal immigration. Dept. of Homeland Security, Pew Research, and the Center for Migration Studies all peg the number at around 11,000.000. He now insists, the U.S. government’s count of 11,000,000 illegals is wrong and, in fact, the numbers is actually closer to 30,000,000 or “it could be 34,000,000.” Id. When asked where he got that number, he says, “I am hearing it from other people…” But those of us who are paying attention know, he got it directly from Coulter’s book. And she admitted, she made up the figures in her book! Id.
Ms. Coulter, the likely brains of the bunch, actually graduated college and went on to earn a law degree! On the other hand, while Donald Trump keeps reminding his audiences, he is “smart’; he has yet to provide documentary evidence he attended college, let alone earned a BA/BS degree. (You might recall that even after Carly Fiorina hinted as such, in a tweet, he could only muster a demand for an apology and, with none forthcoming, he dropped the subject like the proverbial hot potato.) As for gossip-monger Matt Drudge, well, he claims he graduated from high school.
I imagine the thought has crossed Coulter’s bright mind: If the TCD troika can keep flying under the radar then Donald Trump can actually become President.
If that happens; prepare to say hello to Press Secretary Matt Drudge, and Ann Coulter, AG.
I ‘get’ Donald Trump; and in the same way I learned how to interpret Obama-speak, I also developed an ear for his lies. It just took some listening.
Obviously, Trump knows how to tap into Americans’ fear of imminent annihilation at the hands of her enemies, real or imagined; but he is woefully ignorant about foreign affairs and national security. Here’s how you can tell.
Trump lied about having said in advance of our invasion of Iraq in 2003, that the war would be a mistake and de-stabilize the Middle East. In fact, he said that in 2004, along with everyone else, pre-Surge. Interviewer Howard Kurtz caught him in the lie, in this in-person exchange on October 11: ‘You said that in 2004; by then, everyone knew the occupation was a mess. But I can find no evidence that you spoke earlier than that. Did you say that in 2003, before the invasion?’ Trump’s reply: “Yes!”
At the end of that part of the interview with Kurtz, Trump repeated the ‘lie’ indirectly, now fudging the truth. ‘You saw my statement, I was against the war,’ as if Kurtz had actually corroborated his earlier lie instead of calling him on it.
Last night, December 15, during the Republican debate on CNN, Trump repeated the lie Kurtz caught him in more than two months earlier. Only, having failed to pull the wool over Kurtz’s eyes, this time he fudged the lie by changing the date of his anti-war statement so as to ‘cover’ the date of the invasion. ‘I came out against the war in Iraq in 2003/2004, I said it would de-stabilize the Middle East, and I was right.’ After the debate, he was interviewed by Chris Matthews. Now, without being asked a direct question, on point, he re-fudged the lie to counter Kurtz’s previous concerns; by surrounding the newly fudged date – 2003/2004 – with words that now would likely be misinterpreted by the lay listener, as indicating a pre-invasion prediction. ‘I predicted going to war with Iraq would de-stabilize the Middle East, back in 2003/2004!’
You Say Quds Forces, I Say Kurds
Then, there was the radio interview with Hugh Hewitt on September 3. But first, a little context.
Immediately after the U.S. completed negotiations with Iran for that horrendous nuclear agreement in July; Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s elite military Quds Force, went to Russia to meet officials there in violation of a U.N. travel ban. It was in all the papers.
The U.S. will also raise its concerns at the United Nations and pursue the matter through the Security Council. U.S. officials said they believe Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s elite military Qods Force, went to Russia in late July to meet officials there in violation of U.N. travel ban.
“We’ve raised this travel (concern) with senior Russian foreign ministry officials and we’re going to raise it and address it further in New York,” Mr. Toner said Wednesday.
The complaint, and Gen. Soleimani’s trip, come at a sensitive time for the Obama administration. It is working to sell skeptical lawmakers on a nuclear agreement it reached with Iran and several other countries that it has said will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon in exchange for relief from numerous sanctions. Many critics of the White House’s agreement have said Iranian officials cannot be trusted, and Gen. Soleimani’s trip to Russia despite his travel ban could further inflame critics.
Weeks later, Hugh Hewett conducted a radio interview with Donald Trump, Republican candidate for President.
Here is the video of the pertinent segment of the interview, followed by the transcript of the exchange.
HH: Are you familiar with General Soleimani?
DT: (after a long pause) Yeeees… I… but go ahead, give me a little… tell me…
HH: He runs the Quds forces.
DT: Yes, okay, right.
HH: Do you expect…
DT: And I think the Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated by us…
HH: No, not the Kurds, the Quds forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Quds Forces the bad guys.
DT: Right.
HH: Do you expect his behavior to change as a result…
DT: Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you said Kurds, because I think the Kurds have been poorly treated by us, Hugh. Go ahead.
HH: Agreed. So Soleimani runs the Quds Forces. Do you expect his behavior is going to change as a result of this deal with Iran?
DT: I think that Iran right now is in the driver’s seat to do whatever they want to do. I think what’s happening with Iran is, I think it’s one of the, and I covered it very well. I assume you saw the news conference. I think Iran is, it’s one of the great deals ever made for them. I think it’s one of the most incompetent contracts I’ve even seen. I’m not just talking about defense. I’m not talking about a contract with another country. I’ve never seen more of a one-sided deal, I think, in my life, absolutely.
HH: Well, Soleimani is to terrorism sort of what Trump is to real estate.
DT: Okay.
HH: Many people would say he’s the most dangerous man in the world, and he runs the Quds Forces, which is their Navy SEALs.
DT: Is he the gentleman that was going back and forth with Russia and meeting with Putin? I read something, and that seems to be also where he’s at.
HH: That’s the guy.
DT: He’s going back and forth meeting with other countries, etc., etc.
HH: That’s the guy.
DT: Not good.
HH: And so do you think…
DT: Not good for us. And what it shows is a total lack of respect, I mean, that the other countries would even be entertaining him, and they’re entertaining him big league, big league.
(Note: this last line of that segment of the interview only makes sense to me if Trump, having no idea what Hewitt was talking about; looked up the name “Soleimani” while on the phone, and came up with a headline about the general’s visit to Russia. Now, everyone else already familiar with that situation opined, Soleimani was visiting Russia to arrange weapons sales. But with no time to bone up on the transaction; Trump appears to have inferred from the headline that the ‘bad’ man from Iran is being welcomed by world leaders, which visits he – Trump – finds disrespectful to the U.S., ignorant of both the implications of the general’s visit to Russia viz-a-viz the newly negotiated (arms) agreement with Iran; and the travel ban violated by that visit.)
Beginning the day after Hewitt exposed Trump’s ignorance of foreign policy, Trump sought to re-cast what had occurred, expanding his criticism now to encompass the incompetence of his host. “I thought he said Kurds, this third-rate radio announcer that I did the show – it was like got you, got you – every question was do I know this one and that one? It was like he worked hard on that. But I thought he said Kurds.”
A full two weeks later, at the September 15 Republican debate on CNN, Trump blamed his confusing for “Kurds” Hewitt’s use of the words “Soleimani” and “Quds Forces”; on the fact, “Hugh was giving me name after name, Arab name, Arab name, and few people anywhere, anywhere that would have known those names.”
Only, as the audio of that earlier Hewitt interview, posted above, clearly evidences, no such “Arab names” were cast, until several minutes after Hewitt asked Trump about “General Soleimani,” who “runs the Quds Forces,” and Trump screwed that up with “Kurds.”
In other words; once Trump is caught in a lie about an issue central to the campaign, here, national security and foreign policy; listen for his follow-up references to that lie, woven into subsequent conversations, each time re-cast in a not-so-veiled attempt to make his telling the original lie seem to portray him as being less dishonest.
And why does he care so much about these particular lies? Because even Trump is smart enough to be scared to death the truth will be revealed: he is woefully ignorant about foreign affairs and national security.
When it comes to his ‘idea’ that one way to begin fixing current immigration problems is to re-define ‘birthright citizenship’; Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump proves, once again, he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
Donald Trump said Tuesday that he doesn’t think people born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are American citizens.
“I don’t think they have American citizenship and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — and I know some will disagree — but many of them agree with me and you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship.
I am guessing that one of those “very, very good lawyers” he refers to, is Ann Coulter, who hypes the same drivel in her book Adios, America and, at least when it comes to Trump’s forays into immigration ‘policy,’ is an unabashed fan. First, a little background.
On Monday, August 17, responding to questions about talk of ending ‘birthright citizenship,’ Republican Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina told NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell
“It would take passing a constitutional amendment to get that changed. It’s part of our 14th Amendment. So honestly, I think we should put all of our energies, all of our political will into finally getting the border secured and fixing the legal immigration.”
Ms. Coulter was interviewed by syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher the next day:
“I have turned against her [Carly Fiorina) as of yesterday with the hot, hot hate of a 1000 suns.
…yesterday among the attacks I saw on the magnificent Donald Trump immigration plan was, you know, everybody wants to get rid of anchor babies.
You can read the section of my book. It’s very short. It’s not from the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment, you’ll all remember, came after the Civil War, remember what the Civil War was about? That was freeing the slaves. It wasn’t about allowing illegal aliens to run across the border, drop a baby and say, “Ha ha, you missed me, I’m a citizen now.”
Do you think the framers of the 14th Amendment, that’s what they were hoping to do? She [again referencing Ms. Fiorina] said both she and Chris Christie, I saw, saying on TV yesterday, “Well, of course you’d need a Constitutional amendment to do that, that’s crazy.”
And I would bet Mr. Trump paid dearly for Ms. Coulter’s advice. But neither knows what he or she is talking about.
As I have tried to explain – see, for example, SENSE and non-SENSE, AGAIN with the 14th AMENDMENT!, jbjd’s FRENEMIES LIST – the 14th Amendment to the Constitution did not confer U.S. citizenship on anyone; under the Constitution, only Congress may define what constitutes ‘citizenship’ (Art. I, sec. 8. Clause 4). Thus, any attempt to define who is a citizen, through the Amendment process first would have to specifically modify that delineated power in Art. I
Rather, the 14th Amendment, implicitly assuming the fact that slaves, whether natural born or naturalized, were citizens of the U.S., merely re-stated that fact. For effect, it also clarified that, by definition being a citizen of the U.S. also means, being a citizen of the state in which one resides. (Prior to the 14th Amendment, some states and the District of Columbia denied the status of ‘citizenship’ to slaves.) But the sole purpose of mentioning the citizenship status of natural born and naturalized people was to serve as a preamble to the heart of the Amendment: all citizens of the U.S. (and therefore, the states and D.C.) are entitled to equal protection and due process.
In so doing, the 14th Amendment now extended the Due Process entitlement already found in the 5th Amendment, which had applied to the federal government; to the states and D.C. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv Thus, inasmuch as Congress defines all people born in the U.S. as citizens under the law; then, any newly initiated program, whether Executive or Legislative in origin, which calls for the involuntary deportation of these citizens requires due process. This means, even if the ‘plan’ floated by Mr. Trump was implemented, the Judicial branch would be inundated with and drowned to a halt by the petitions of citizens facing such deportation.
(There’s also this: Art. I, sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution already prohibit Congress from passing ex post facto laws, that is, laws which criminalize conduct after the fact. Thus, criminalizing being in this country, having been born here, would first require amending the Constitution so as to eliminate the prohibition against ex post fact laws.)
So much for taking ‘legal’ advice on immigration, from someone with a vested financial interest in selling her books.
UPDATED 08.19.15: Here is an interesting treatise on the subject, produced with our taxpayer money by the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”). http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf An interesting finding is that, the common law definition of the disputed terms, as incorporated into the 14th Amendment, prevailed until ‘codified’ in 1898, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That is, whoever is born here – with limited exceptions such as children of diplomats – and subject to the jurisdiction thereof – this excluded native Americans not ‘citizenized’ by treaties with the U.S. – is a citizen of the U.S. and the state of residence. Subsequent laws extended citizenship to all Indian tribes, regardless of treaty status. ADMINISTRATOR
Today, in a calculated display of hubris rivaled only by a production spawned from President Obama’s re-election campaign, Donald Trump has unveiled his much touted October “bombshell“: a “deal” to entice Mr. Obama to produce both his college and passport applications and records. Trump promises that jumping through this hoop “by October 31,” and “to my satisfaction,” and “if it’s complete,” will yield a check for $5,000,000 to Obama’s designated ‘charity.’ (I put the word ‘charity’ in single quotes because in addition to listing a well known outfit like “American Cancer Society”; he lists not only the umbrella enterprise of “AIDS research”; but also the generalized category “inner city children in Chicago.”) He couches his request in terms of acting on behalf of the people, to end their “questions” and “anger.” Yes, he knows that the President will be doing a “great service for the country” by allowing them to “know something about their President.” In short, by releasing the documents Trump mentioned, the President suddenly will “become transparent.”
Of course, some of us know, no “thing” coming out of this dog-and-pony show will inform anyone where Barack Obama was born.
For starters, notice that Trump qualified his reference to Obama’s “long-form birth certificate” by adding (after an obvious pause) “or whatever it may be.” It’s the “whatever it may be” which should have been the tip-off, Trump is wearing his circus barker hat. Why do you suppose he is ‘hedging his bets’ as to the ‘document’s’ authenticity?
As I explained in SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE back on April 1, 2012 (and other articles linked therein), what was released on April 27 was the political ad campaign conceived, executed, and launched by the President’s re-election campaign, the contents of which were fully protected by the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on restrictions on political speech. Featuring the image of the mock-up of a long-form birth certificate, the ads ran on internet sites such as WhiteHouse.gov/blog. (Emphasis added.)
Do you suppose that Mr. Trump, in April 2011 still a possible contender for the Presidency; doesn’t recognize a political ad campaign when he sees one?
Trump asserts he forced the President’s April 27 release of this advertising image: “I’m very honored to have gotten him to release his long-form birth certificate…” Presumably, he means, in a desperate attempt to quell doubts as to the President’s birth status which have swirled unabated for more than 3 years, since the primary in 2008; it was his – Trump’s – many references to concerns as to whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, uttered as a (pseudo) Presidential candidate in the spring of 2011 which compelled the release of the document at this particular time. (Again, crediting the release of the certificate – “or whatever it may be” – to the President, as opposed to correctly attributing the release to the President’s re-election campaign, cannot have been an innocent oversight.) But, of course, Trump had no more to do with either the substance or the timing of the April 27 appearance of the long form image; than any of the other millions of Americans challenging the narrative of Obama’s birth and demanding some sort of documentation. In fact, its release was triggered by the formal announcement of the President’s re-election campaign 3 weeks earlier, on April 4, and the accompanying mandatory filing with the FEC which then allowed the solicitation of funds in his name by the newly formed re-election campaign, funds which the campaign immediately translated into expenditures on political advertising such as the long-form ad. In other words, it was the official (read, legal) kick-off of the President’s re-election campaign which provided the first opportunity to address what were ongoing eligibility issues that could jeopardize his re-election. (The formal kick-off of the President’s campaign was also accompanied by previously scheduled events associated with the re-election campaign, including a stint on Oprah and a major NY fundraiser, also on the 27th. Id.)
SHE SAID / HE SAID contains not only a lucid (albeit lengthy) explanation of the long-form image as a campaign expenditure; but also references several other articles on the “jbjd” blog, dispelling the long-form myth, including HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard), which points to the lethal problems associated with allowing candidate ‘self-authentication.’ Indeed, did you notice that Trump’s deal for Obama’s records never specifies who must transmit these records, or to whom these records must be submitted? And while he says, the documents must be “complete” and to his “satisfaction”; he never specifies, who will determine whether these criteria are met. Because he knows better.
For example, during the recent Presidential debates; Obama verified the authenticity of some of his ‘facts’ by citing their source was “reporters.” What if these same “reporters” verify any forthcoming records? (See Pooh-poohing Pulitzer) And recall that Annenberg Political Fact Check staffers with no expertise in document authentication confirmed, the mock-up of the President’s Certification of Live Birth, and accompanying ad copy, were real. (See RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’) Assuming she is being sincere in this heated exchange with John Sununu from the Romney campaign; Reporter Soledad O’Brien is only one of millions of Americans who still wrongly believe, what APFC says must be true.
In sum, Donald Trump knows better than to contend that any ‘documents’ forthcoming through this publicity stunt will increase the knowledge of the American people about the circumstances of our President’s birth; or diminish our ire at what many of us feel is a con. On the contrary; by failing to take advantage of media opportunities like this, to educate the public that, legally, the April 11, 2011 long-form release by the Obama re-election campaign was only part of a political ad launch; and worse, by cynically encouraging the Obama campaign this opportunity to repeat that ploy; Trump only broadens the con, and exacerbates our ire.
Obviously, Mr. Trump thinks most Americans are as foolish as does President Obama.
Several well-read blogosphere pundits, among them Ben Smith at Politico, have been soundly outplayed by Donald Trump in the Obama birth certificate round robin; and for that, I have to give “The Donald” his props.
This time around, he fixes his faux pitch to head the Executive branch of government, on a new gimmick: President Obama’s birth certificate. At first, I scoffed at the tactic of focusing the campaign on producing a document he claims would establish Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. Because in so doing, he only confirmed a craven compulsion to hog publicity, this time trivializing the otherwise somber issue of election fraud that corrupted the 2008 general election cycle. In other words, I thought his antics undermined real attempts underway for some time now, to expose actual crimes committed by Mr. Obama and his sales and marketing team, during their bona fide con to occupying the Oval Office.
But even though I have identified and initiated many of these efforts to ‘out’ the crimes of Team Obama which, on first glance, I thought were being trivialized by his campaign; before I finalized the original version of this article, events occurred which caused me to change my mind. Indeed, after closer inspection I am not at all angry at “The Donald” for potentially gumming up the works. Because whether he intentioned, by engaging in this latest sales initiative, he not only has exposed some of the intricacies of document identification which have been the subject of many articles posted here on “jbjd” – “Certificate” versus “Certification,” for example, or “issuing authority” – but also simultaneously has ‘outed’ the complicity of the press in giving Obama’s deceit on this front, a blanket pass. And I have to give props where these are due.
As I have stated all along, the main reason for going after those D’s who committed election fraud viz-a-viz swearing to state election officials in applicable states,which are those states with ballot eligibility laws; that Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS notwithstanding they had failed to ascertain whether he is a NBC, just to get these officials to print his name on the ballot, is this. Get the attention of Congress. Because under the Constitution, the way to get rid of an ineligible President (for criminal acts related to his ineligibility) is through Impeachment, carried out by Congress. But many legislators have reassured their frantic constituents, in writing, ‘don’t worry, Mr. Obama is eligible for the job.’ So, how do we get them to change their minds? I anticipated that when confronted with the well-documented possibility, Obama’s eligibility has been a scam all along, (and no longer able to get away with insisting otherwise) the House would introduce Articles of Impeachment so as to enable the Senate to get on with eligibility hearings.
I hoped to trigger this ‘awareness’ through the citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG. But if Trump’s shenanigans effect Impeachment hearings, more power to him.
So, what aspect of his birth certificate campaign will compel sufficient scrutiny of Obama’s election fraud so as to trigger Impeachment? The fact that the press is giving Trump’s efforts in this regard more scrutiny even before any decision to run; than they did Mr. Obama’s, on his march all the way into the White House. The disparity is striking. And, as a result, the only pundits who at this point cling to the laughable insistence, Obama has already proven, he is for real; expose themselves as paid shills of the O.D. party.
Take Ben Smith at Politico, whose attempts at satire hardly disguise the acknowledged impossibility of equating an on-line electronic image produced by the person whose name appears on that image; with an official hard copy document produced by the “issuing authority.”
Donald Trump made headlines earlier today when he provided what he said was a copy of his birth certificate — but a quick check reveals it’s actually not an official document.
The paper that Trump released says “Jamaica Hospital” on top and lists the date and time of what he says was his birth to “Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Trump.” The piece of paper has a seal at the bottom.
But after several New York City-based readers contacted POLITICO’s Maggie Haberman, her call to city officials revealed that an actual birth certificate, which is issued by the Department of Health, would have the agency’s seal and also a signature of the city registrar – neither of which the Trump document has. Officials said the city Health Department is the “sole issuing authority” of official birth certificates in New York, and that the document would clearly say so, and “city officials said it’s not an official document.”
It appears instead to be a hospital “certificate of birth,” meaning the piece of paper the hospital gave to his family saying he was born. Such a document typically has the signature of the hospital administrator and the attending physician.
Trump lawyer and advisor Michael Cohen didn’t respond to Haberman’s question about the document.
Trump’s mother, it should be noted, was born in Scotland, which is not part of the United States. His plane is registered in the Bahamas, also a foreign country. This fact pattern — along with the wave of new questions surrounding what he claims is a birth certificate — raises serious doubts about his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
UPDATE: On a second attempt, Trump produces what appears to be a real one.
After that analysis, why would anyone accept Mr. Smith’s apparent continued belief, the COLB image that is the centerpiece of Obama’s paid political electronic ad campaign is real? And, by continuing to insist Obama is for real, why does he now definitively expose himself as a paid shill or, in the alternative, a fool? Because if he admits he is wrong about Obama’s on-line COLB – and, according to the accreditation in the footer, this image is now the property of the DNC Services Corporation – then, he also admits he participated in efforts to throw the 2008 D Presidential primary to a candidate who was Constitutionally ineligible for the job.
Barack Obama’s Constitutional con hinged on the public’s buying into his “Fight the Smears” web site, the focal point of which electronic advertising platform was the photographed mockup of a redacted Hawaiian COLB, conceived and copyrighted in 2007, more than 6 (six) months before the launch date, in June 2008.
If only Hillary Clinton hadn’t been such a strong contender for the D Presidential nomination, the FTS roll-out could have been delayed forever.
Questions as to Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS likely would have remained largely unasked and certainly, as a result, unanswered if the 2008 D Presidential nominee wannabe and his accomplices could have confiscated enough pledged delegate votes through the disproportionally weighted and then subsequently co-opted caucuses by February’s Super Tuesday, to make running away with the nomination a(n eventual) fait accompli. Instead, even after March 4, when both TX and OH voters handily chose her over him, his agents were still fertilizing the false meme to D’s throughout the country, Hillary Clinton had no chance to win the nomination. Including the press. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4385756&page=1
Like Ben Smith, at Politico.
In 2008, Ben Smith, Carrie Budoff, and Jonathan Martin were named in the byline of an article appearing on March 8, just after Clinton had taken the TX, OH, and RI primaries. The article featured the individual opinions of each with regard to one of the 3 (three) candidates remaining in both the R and D primaries: Obama, Clinton, and McCain. But the introduction to these individual pieces is not specifically attributed to any one of the 3 (three) authors. This unattributed introduction contains the following line:
Sen. Barack Obama will need a new strategy to defend his narrow delegate margin.
Which is it, “narrow delegate margin” or “daunting mathematics of overcoming Obama’s delegate lead”? Well, let’s look at the figures. Going into the contests she won on March 4, (even) the NYTreported Obama was only 86 pledged delegates ahead of her, or less than .04% of total delegates required at that time to win the nomination!
As I have said before, Obama’s financial backers knew if their agent was to secure the D Presidential nomination, the D primary had to end as early as possible. Because the more time this flawed candidate remained in the national public eye, the more scrutiny he had to endure. Including questions as to his Constitutional eligibility for the job. Until finally, with the primary/caucus season finally ended and no clear winner in sight, the candidate was finally compelled to concede the rising wave of questions as to his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, and do damage control.
The FTS ad was desperately released in June 2008 to stem the late spring ineligibility tide only because even the cadre of well compensated co-conspirators fixed to rig August’s nominating convention were unwilling to publicly endorse the man if the country still doubted he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.
Gambling that the obvious political ad would sufficiently distract the public from the facts, paid off. Three years later, people were still claiming Obama’s birth certificate is posted on line. Plus, when they were questioned by constituents as to Obama’s eligibility, the advertisement provided both ignorant and dishonest politicians alike, with plausible deniability.
But no more. Because thanks to Donald Trump, everyone, including Ben Smith, now knows, which on-line ‘document’ at least appears to have all of the attributes of a real birth certificate. And which does not.
(04.10.11): Update.
My, my, my. It would appear that I was right to come down on the side of the birth certificate showing put on by Mr. Trump. Cue the ‘MSM’ with gift wrapped disinformation that confirms, he has hit his mark.
Michael Isikoff, posting today at MSNBC on-line under the moniker “National investigative correspondent,” apparently is among those reporters who continue to assume that anyone still reading the drivel produced under a purported ‘news’ banner like MSNBC; is either too stupid or too gullible, or both, to discern fact from hype. How else to explain his latest article, Ex-Hawaii official denounces ‘ludicrous’ birther claims in which he now seemingly tries to redeem those same HI election officials who failed miserably in 2008 to parse their validation of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS sufficiently so as to assuage genuine concerns the man might not even be a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born. jbjd, BIRTHER
Especially Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the ex-Director of the HI State Health Department.
Isikoff claims in his article, this time around, Dr. Fukino has clarified, via an admission, that before making those statements in 2008, she had unlawfully accessed the protected privileged confidential records of Barack Obama without first obtaining either a written waiver of liability from Mr. Obama (or his legal representatives) for such otherwise unlawful conduct or, written instructions permitting her to publicly advertise what she had learned from this unlawful breach.
(Mr. Isikoff did not actually refer to this peek at Obama’s birth records as illegal. But, if what he wrote about Dr. Fukino’s conduct is true then, she did break the law.)
Here are just a couple of ‘facts’ Isikoff reported in this story which those of you regularly reading “jbjd” already know signal his information sounds fishy.
He says when Dr. Fukino was Director of HI’s Department of Health, before making a public statement as to Obama’s HI birth, “she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records.” However, for some unknown reason, he fails to provide readers with the name of that state official.
He ‘reports’ Dr. Fukino claims she saw “the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” … located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health.” The logical inference then, is that this bound Certificate is indexed in some fashion, by number or letter or a combination of both. And that such index number can be verified at least as to the volume she describes. However, the only document Isikoff links in his article, is that same COLB which is the centerpiece of the FTS paid political advertisement, the one with the identifying index number prominently redacted.DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2)andDE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2)
He reports that “Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department’s Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named “Obama II, Barack Hussein” as having been born in the state.” Again, for some reason, Mr. Wisch fails to provide any identifying information that would aid retrieval. And Mr. Isikoff fails to point out Mr. Wisch’s omission to his readers.
In sum, while I found very little basis for the descriptor “Investigative” before the moniker “reporter” in Mr. Isikoff’s byline; I was certainly entertained by his failed efforts to discredit the ever rising crescendo of non-believers now challenging the authenticity of anything closely associated with Obama.
Including Mr. Isikoff and MSNBC.
P.S. Question to Mr. Isikoff: Given that your article points to the lack of identifying information available in the public domain that would allow people to physically inspect any of the documents mentioned therein; how do you suppose all of those prominent members of the D party who Certified in 2008 that Obama was eligible for office, to state election officials in applicable states, that is, states requiring candidates to be eligible for the office sought in order to get their names printed on the ballot; were able to ascertain in advance, he is a NBC? (We have asked all of them but they refuse to tell us. See, for example, MEMORANDUM of COMPLAINT of ELECTION FRAUD against LT. GOV. BRIAN E. SCHATZ, ACTING in a NON-GOVERNMENTAL ROLE as CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC PARTY of HAWAII; and REQUEST for INVESTIGATION by the ATTORNEY GENERAL of HAWAII, inALOHA OBAMA and SHALOM.)
Freedom isn't free. Both the quantity of work hours I am able to dedicate to the "jbjd" blog; and the quality of the legal research required to produce a sound product; are a function of the sum of financial donations from my readers. So, please, help me help you.
jbjd on REVOLUTION RADIO with "drkate" DISCLAIMER: These radio interviews took place in 2010. And while the information contained therein is as timely now as then; they took place before drkate's on-line persona morphed into its present iteration.)
All all 5 (five) appearances are now available on podcast!
What is copyright? Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.
What does copyright protect? Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."
When is my work protected? Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
Posted by jbjd 
jbjd 