The Thought Refuse

A Virtual Repository for the Mind

Why The Obama POTUS Question Has Not Gained Traction In The Media

with 10 comments

A comment under my post PUMA Radio Program On KPFT Goes Awry link the blogcast radio show Political Pistachio in which the dominating topic was the Obama POTUS issue.  The radio show covered numerous topics that have become mainstream among particular blogs, and repeatedly posed the question – why is the media not reporting this?

The radio host and guests postulate that the primary reason is because it’s far too incineary a subject to present to the masses, creating a violent storm of protest among Obama supporters.  The more probable answer, however, they miss entirely, but that is not uncommon when you hold a radio show that involves people who exist within a closed circle of partisanship(and where the host calls the opposition “silly”).

Everyone will recall the controversy during the 2004 election affectionately called Rathergate, in which CBS anchor Dan Rather reported on 60 Minutes questioning President Bush’s military service and purported to have four authentic documents.  The documents were later proofen to be forgeries when examined by forensic experts.  Several top CBS news executives were forced to resign in the wake of the aftermath, and Dan Rather stepped down six months later, moving up his planned leave from CBS by a year.

The answer is quite simple – major news executives do not want to lose their job by reporting an erroneous and unsubstantiated story.  However, Iit is understandable why the radio host and guests never extrapolated this quite obvious conclusion simply because they began their entire discussion on the premise that the birth certificate Obama presented was a forgery, when, in fact, this has proven to be a false claim.

Techdude, an anonymous self proclaimed forensic expert, reported on Atlas Shrugs that the birth certificate Obama presented was a forgery.  Polarik, another self proclaimed nameless expert, agreed with Techdude(but later disputed some of Techdude’s techniques).  Dr. Neal Krawetz, a known forensic expert, examined both the birth certificate and both Techdude’s and Polarik’s findings.  He presented evidence that Techdude manipulated the evidence to suit his theory, while illustrating how Polarik failed at the most basic process of image analysis(this under a thread by another known expert who concluded the birth certificate is authentic).

Techdude mysteriously disappeared after coming under attack for his poor “forensic skills”.  The td blog, as mentioned during the radio broadcast, has previously published and supported Techdude’s findings.  As of today, all links connected to Techdude and the birth certificate forgery have been removed from the td blog.  Polarik, meanwhile, has resorted to attacking the website WhatsYourEvidence and it’s owner for being a:

website continues to be operated in complete anonymity, without any disclosures made to the public as to its true motives and intentions

Even though it’s obvious, note the irony.  Polarik, an anonymous internet blogger, whose displayed a negative disposition for anything Obama is, as he states, “punking” his opposition for having a thread pulled our masked crusader posted on Free Republic personally attacking the owner of WhatsYourEvidence.

The Phillip Berg lawsuit(and the clone lawsuits that cropped up immediately following his) were not reported for precisely the same reason.  Berg cited three forensic experts.  One can be surmised as being Techdude as Berg lifted Techdude’s text word for word and placed it in his filing.  Polarik is assumed to be the other as a later amended filing identified one expert as Ron Polarik.  The third remains completely unknown.  A plethora of Berg’s accusations rest on the assumption that Obama was born outside the United States.  The citing of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act is an example.

The rest of the lawsuit’s factual claims spring from the intrepretation of law by Judah Benjamin in which he attempted to connect the meaning of Allegiance in Article II of the US Constitution.  Benjamin is a proclaimed historian, and admits to holding no legal degree.

Without any solid evidence(the rest of Berg’s allegations revolve around purported tapes, wikipedia entries, ect) and amateur legal intrepretations, it’s not unreasonable that major news orginizations would not air or publish this story.  Major news sources have to account for journalistic integrity, specifically following accuracy and factual reporting and slander/libel liabilities.  Insulated blog communities devoted to singular topics face zero reprecussions when they violate the tenants of journalistic intergrity.  There are no editors, internal review boards, or advertisting entities to answer to.  A blog is without consequence as to their reporting methods.  The worst case scenario for a blogger is being embarrassed in an anonymous enviroment, but that quickly passed with the adoption of a new internet identity.

One can’t be terribly surprised this possibility never entered the conversation on Political Pistachio for anyone who listened to the full ninety minutes.  Anyone who engages in, what I term, spaghetti logic – where you throw out enough accusations without examining each one individually that it creates an indistinguishable tangle, one is unable to distinguish between fact and assumption – can rarely be expected to devote the energy into thoroughly investigating both sides of an issue to discover the truth.  Once your twisted up in your own spaghetti logic, it’s nearly impossible to escape.  I highly doubt that the host will invite, and give a fair shake, to anyone on the opposite side a voice on his program, as he asked at the end of his program.  Then again, he isn’t obligated to do so considering he is cushioned within the compact world of blogs, but maybe he’ll consider this alternative answer to the question he posited.

Advertisements

Written by huxbux

November 21, 2008 at 11:00 pm

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It is reported by Debbie S. of ABC-TV that O. did not register
    for SSS. A draft dodger cannot be sworn in if he has committed
    a FEDERAL MISDEMEANOR. please check and verify Deb’s work.
    All very sad. Candidate was NOT properly vetted. Howard Dean is to blame. Should be fined, IMO.

    J Scovit

    November 22, 2008 at 4:23 pm

  2. This has been debunked so many times its not funny. PE Obama has more important things to worry about. Besides, if he acknowledges this farce it will only incite more questions and accusations. If he steps forward and shows them what they want to see, they will only want to see more and more and more. Where might it stop. Why cant these people just admit that they do not want to see Obama as president under any circumstance and will stop at nothing to see that through?

    http://cpr-dionysus.blogspot.com/

    Dionysus

    November 22, 2008 at 5:14 pm

  3. this is in response to dionysus blog that says “this has been debunked soo many times its not funny”!!…Instead of just blowing smoke up the american peoples behind, give us some concrete evidence as to WHERE AND BY WHOM this has (as u so callously say) been debunked so many times…The truth of the matter is YOU CANT!!!!..So until you can , keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself…It is one thing to say something…It is another thing to back up what you say with concrete facts and evidence…Maybe you havent heard, but the U.S. Supreme Court has just granted a conference in front of all 9 justices concerning in part the eligibility of obama to be president of the U.S. by way of a lawsuit named donofrio vs. wells, secretary of state of new jersey…By the comment you left on this site, i must conclude you consider our U.S. Supreme Court to be just another group of ignorant thinking fascist who hate obama and want him outed as the POTUS…The cold hard truth of the matter is obama is not a “natural born citizen” as Article 2 of our Constitution prescribes as a qualification to run for POTUS….Apparently our U.S. Supreme Court considers this issue important enough to give it a conference and possibly a full hearing with oral argument and attending briefs…Research facts before you make such stupid remarks as “this has been debunked”!!…You know nothing of what your saying and obviously have decided to stay unenlightened while this fraud and usurper attempts to take office jan 20th…

    william

    November 23, 2008 at 1:11 pm

  4. @JScovit

    The information presented by Debbie Schlussel are mildly interesting. A good deal of her argument as to why the displayed document is a forgery revolve around a considerable amount of inference based around assumptions. While it’s worth investigating further, her presentation is not definitive.

    @Dionysus

    It’s quite common to consistently move the “goalposts” in order to accomplish a goal. It is interesting that initially the Obama birth certificate issue centered around whether he was actually born in the United States. When the primacy of their evidence(Techdude and Polarik) that is was a forgery became untenable, the argument moved to focusing on the interpretation of “Allegiance” under Article II of the Constitution.

    @william

    I commend you on your fervor, however equally viral it might be compared against those who you condemn. Understand that nothing has been proven from either side. Your side presented purported evidence that the Obama COLB was a forgery. When examined by known forensic experts, Techdude and Polarik’s findings failed to hold water. No credible evidence has been presented to proof or indicate that the Obama COLB is a forgery. I’m sure you can understand the principle of burden of proof.

    A preponderance of evidence regarding other matters, as to Obama’s suitability for POTUS is dominated by either ancedotal evidence or intuition. Ancedotal evidence is suspect by nature. There are claims that tapes exist that show Michelle Obama and his grandmother state he was born outside the United States. As of now, those tapes have not surfaced. Proof of an accusation cannot be reasonably exist until said proof is produced. Intuition is often susceptible to subjectivity. For instance, the question of which hospital Obama was born at stems from conflicting wikipedia entries. It seems more a matter of personal convention to fulfill personal ends to cite a source so easily compromised.

    The only argument to be made here is to consider what constitutes a “natural born citizen” under Article II. Previous legal precedent and US law indicate that dual citizenship is not grounds for lose of US citizenship. So, the argument shifts to the interpretation of “Allegiance” in Article II, and whether or not dual citizenship violates this term. One could make the objective argument that “Allegiance” presupposes only a single citizenship, while an equally reasonable argument could be made that the framers intended for no agent of a foreign government to hold the Presidency and “Allegiance” is intent based on previous associations and/or actions.

    Nothing, as you say, has been proven or fully debunked. You are just as guilty in your righteousness as you criminalize others for the same offense. The Supreme Court deciding to hold a conference on the case is significant, but it is not prima facia evidence that Obama is not POTUS eligible, as you portray it to be. There are numerous questions worthy of answering, not least of all are questions concerning Article II and POTUS procedural matters. Never has POTUS been an issue in any previous Presidential election, and it’s prudent for the Court to address the matter. But again, just because the process is taking it’s course, does not presuppose a verdict.

    If your honestly interested in the truth then follow the entire process from beginning to end without indoctrinating each step in the process with your own ideology. Just as you decry Dionysus for his refusal to accept an alternative truth, you should as well. The truth rarely shines through a tinted window.

    huxbux

    November 23, 2008 at 2:08 pm

  5. how is polarik an anonymous internet blogger? that is his name, which is eaily verifiable.

    Why do you dwell on the minor defects of these people instead of the real issue?

    Chicago Joe

    November 23, 2008 at 3:01 pm

  6. @Chicago Joe

    I haven’t seen anything that indicates Ron Polarik is anything but an internet entity. There is no record of a Ron Polarik anywhere except several account creations on various internet cites prior to his posting of his findings.

    I prefer to cite works of known, verifiable forensic experts such as Neal Krawetz. It’s not a matter of dwelling on minor defects, but a matter of professional integrity and verification. An experts qualifications are hardly a minor defect, especially in a court of law.

    If you have some verification of Ron Polarik’s credentials, I’d be more then happy to retract my statement. Or at least some previous history of work in image analysis and forensics.

    huxbux

    November 23, 2008 at 3:24 pm

  7. A note for whatever reader.

    1. The complete set of “Polarik” observations should be worthy of further review.

    2. If this apparently derived COLB is not a forgery per se, it does not mean that it is an accurate representation of the place of birth of Barack Obama.

    3. Barack Obama’s place of birth is not an essential element of Donofrio’s New Jersey lawsuit, which asserts that BHO is not eligible for the office of the presidency, by not being a “natural born citizen” according to the meaning of that phrase as it was drafted.

    4. Considering the above, there is no reason to black-out news coverage of cases being being brought as high as the Supeme Court of the United States of America.

    Arlen Williams

    November 23, 2008 at 6:14 pm

  8. @Arlen

    1. Polarik’s findings were reviewed by Dr. Neal Krawetz. It did not pass this single peer review. Polarik’s findings have not undergone the standard peer review process. If it’s worth anything, it’s worth being subjected to proper peer reivew before being touted as accurate.

    2. This correct to a degree. The COLB posted can never be proven to be authentic, but it can(and has) been proven to not have been tampered with. However, it is not evidence that Obama was born elsewhere either which is what it is being used as.

    3. Correct. It’s based on the interpretation of Article II of the US Constitution where “natural born citizen” is referenced. Judah Benjamin first posited the interpretation that the framers based upon a letter John Jay sent to George Washington saying:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    The premise being that because his father was Kenyan(at the time a British Colony), Obama was a British citizen at his time of birth. The interpretation itself is hardly quite so clear cut as people want it to appear.

    That aside, the contention that Obama was a British citizen at all is debatable. Note the British Nationality Act of 1948, Part II, Section 5(b) which reads:

    “5.—(1) 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:

    Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

    b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; or”

    I’m not aware that Obama’s father registered with a British consulate by 1962.

    There are other legal arguments that can be made against the intrepretation presented in the Donofrio case. The key thing to remember is that this is not as definitive as, you, and others would like to make it seem, much less acknowledge.

    4. It will be covered, most assuredly, once the Supreme Court decides to hear the case. There are numerous reasons that it hasn’t been covered here-to-for which are all perfectly reasonable – unsubstantiated evidence, poor legal arguments, and the history of person’s filing lawsuits(Berg and Martin).

    huxbux

    November 24, 2008 at 2:49 pm

  9. While the denofrio case was denied cert today bt SCOTUS the following case is being conferenced this friday dec 12. the case is about the same legal issues. the berg case is a case on other legal issues regarding Obamas citizenship. In addition there are cases ending in other courts against Obama and to have the electoral college not confirm Obama. This whole issue is just beginning- Please read the following

    PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm
    Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

    The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 – whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

    Tomorrow, Dec. 9 – Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray – who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc – was appointed by Chester Arthur.

    The Wong Kim Arc case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.

    The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Arc seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.

    Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Arc was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.

    It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.

    Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.

    It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Arc.

    It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.

    All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Arc must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.

    Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.

    Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

    Cort Wrotnowski

    michelle

    December 9, 2008 at 3:11 am

  10. Very simply: Why is this issue proving so difficult to establish? The plain truth is, you and I MUST produce a VALID birth certificate in order to get Social Security bene-
    fits, driver’s licenses, and passports. How much more
    crucial then, to establish – BEYOND ANY DOUBT – the ACT-
    UAL PROOF of Obama’s birth?? Aren’t eyewitnesses used
    in our own courts to establish proof to juries? Therefore,
    why isn’t Obama’s grandmother’s eyewitness account be-
    ing used to expose the LIE given by the Obama campaign?
    She would know, better than anyone else I can imagine,
    that this guy was born in Kenya, Africa. Furthermore, what
    possible reason could she have to lie about such a thing??
    As long as there is ANY DOUBT, how can anyone accept
    any measures enacted by this administration as either
    LEGAL OR BINDING??? The only alternative now is impeach-
    ment to get Obama out of the office he has fraudulently
    entered. Hopefully a REAL investigation will be instigated
    by responsible people who can actually GET THINGS DONE.

    jim

    March 30, 2009 at 1:50 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: