If the Birther Issue Comes Up in Debate -- American Thinker, Jack Cashill

[bsteadman]

If the Birther Issue Comes Up in Debate

American Thinker
Jack Cashill
8/27/2012

Excerpt:

"No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate," said Mitt Romney at a rally last week in a Detroit suburb. "They know this is the place that we were born and raised."

This remark created a major stir on the left, a minor stir in the media, and a petit frisson on the right, and it touched the great empty middle of "undecided" America not at all. For better or worse, the undecideds have other things to worry about.

Later, Romney adviser Kevin Madden seemed to temper the remark, telling the media, "The governor has always said, and has repeatedly said, he believes the president was born here in the United States. "He was only referencing that Michigan, where he is campaigning today, is the state where he himself was born and raised."

Although some on the right were disappointed that Romney did not pursue this, he was wise not to. This was not the right time. The right time is during a debate. At least one moderator will find Romney's bait irresistible, and I am guessing it will be CNN's Candy Crowley. What follows is a proposed strategy for the Hofstra University debate on October 16. My guess is that Romney has pretty much figured it out already, thus the remark in Michigan:

CC: Governor Romney, in Michigan you told a crowd of supporters, "No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate." Don't you believe that the birth certificate President Obama presented last year is valid?

MR: I have questions about its validity, but that is not why I raised the issue.

CC: Why did you, then? Weren't you afraid that some people, minorities and immigrants especially, will see that as a subtle attack on President Obama because of his race?

MR: Candy, not at all. No one ever asked to see Jesse Jackson's birth certificate when he ran for president or Al Sharpton's when he ran. And they are both black, both proud representatives of the president's party. I raised that issue because of the unique uncertainty surrounding Obama's early years. I know I was born and raised in Michigan. I said as much. I would ask you or the president himself to tell us where he spent the first year of his life.

CC: Mr. President?

BO: Um, um, I am not sure I understand why this question is relevant.

CC: Governor?

MR: It is relevant because President Obama built his 2008 campaign, indeed his very persona, around the fact that he was born into a happy multicultural home in Hawaii and that he lived there until he was six. That is not true, and he knows it.

BO: Candy, haven't we spent enough time on this question already?

MR: No, Mr. President. We have not spent nearly enough time. Would you please confirm to the American people that your mother and father never lived together and that you spent your infancy in the state of Washington?

CC: Mr. President, is that true?

BO: There is some uncertainty about that first year.

MR: The uncertainty did not end with year one. It was Barack Obama himself who claimed a Kenyan birth in the promotional material his literary agent, Jane Dystel, sent to prospective publishers.

CC: Is that true, Mr. President?

BO: (testily) As the agency explained, that was a clerical error.

MR: A clerical error is saying you were born in Kansas City, Kansas when you were really born in Kansas City, Missouri. Secretaries don't say "Kenya" when they mean "Hawaii." It doesn't happen.

CC: Governor, do you believe he was born in Kenya?

MR: No, I don't. I believe that the president misrepresented himself to make his book more marketable. He has a habit of doing that. Do I have time for one more point, Candy?

CC: Please make it quick. We're on the clock.

MR: Can you or the president please explain how he came up with an 042 prefix on his Social Security card? That is a Connecticut number. How did he get it?

BO: I can assure you that Osama bin Laden did not ask to see my Social Security number when we raided his compound in Pakistan.

MR: Speaking of Pakistan, Mr. President, why did you refuse to mention your trip there in 1981 until soon after an employee of your current deputy national security adviser, John Brennan, was caught breaching your passport file in 2008?
..................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...in_debate.html

[bsteadman]

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'If the Birther Issue Comes Up in Debate', which was started 8/27/2012 by 'Flotsam_Jetsome'

The thread references the 8/27/2012 American Thinker article written by Jack Cashill - http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...in_debate.html

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2923243/posts

---

The following is an excerpt from COMMENT #165, by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

(Alvin T. Onaka) ... was asked to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama. He did not verify those things. The only reason the statute allows for him to not verify a fact on request from a qualified requestor is if he cannot certify that the event actually happened that way. He did verify that those are the facts that are claimed on the record they have, so the only reason left for him to not certify that the event actually happened as claimed is if the record they have is not legally valid/probative.

In the same way, he was asked to verify that the long-form that was posted to the White House website was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.” The only legal reason to not verify that is if it CAN’T be verified, because it’s not true. Onaka said some other things to make it easy for people to get distracted (”the information contained in the record matches the original record”), but the law required him to say that the copy was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” if that is actually true. And he didn’t.

The presumption of regularity means that unless there is evidence to the contrary, it has to legally be presumed that routine requests were handled in the prescribed way and conform to the requirements of the law. IOW, since Onaka didn’t verify what was requested by a qualified requestor, we have to presume it was for the only lawful reason: because he COULDN’T verify those things.

He can say whatever he wants to in order to deflect the question and distract from his final answer, but the final answer is that he did not verify any of those facts and he did not verify the copy as a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. And the legal presumption is that his response was lawful; he didn’t verify because he COULDN’T, which is the only lawful reason for him to not verify those things.

The stuff he put on the letter of verification is all smokescreen. It’s what he DIDN’T say and the only legal reason for him to not say them that reveals all.

Three different lawyers have looked at the laws, the documents, and my legal reasoning and concur.

In addition to that - and this was my first clue that I had this right - the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee understood this verification the same way, because when they requested a verification after observing Onaka’s response to Bennett, they were very careful not to ask for any actual birth facts to be verified. They knew Onaka could not and would not verify any facts as true, because the record is not legally valid. But knew that he WOULD verify that the claims on the White House forgery match the information that is on their non-valid record. So that’s all they asked Onaka to verify - that the particular claims on the posted long-form are also on Hawaii’s (non-valid) record.

So even the Mississippi Democratic Party’s lawyers understood Onaka’s verification to Bennett the same way as the 3 lawyers I consulted, who agreed with my understanding of the law.

Onaka’s failure to verify any actual BIRTH FACTS (even though those are the claims on the record they have) confirms that the record they have is legally non-valid. And Onaka’s failure to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” is confirmation that it is NOT a true and accurate representation of the original record on file. IOW, it is a forgery - made to appear valid when the real record has stamps on it showing it to be legally non-valid.