orly taitz: Page 1
Earlier this year, Hawaii's legislature signed the so-called "Birther Bill" into law; it allowed them to ignore repeated requests from the same person for information relating to Obama's likely but not proven birth in that state. Not only did it restrict government transparency about *all* requests for information, and not only was it signed during "Sunshine Week", but none of those who push for government transparency say a peep about the law.
Now it's become clear that not only was the bill not needed, but it's failed at its supposed purpose: the law has only been used six times.
Instead, those with requests have done what I suggested at the link above: find loopholes. One of those is simply to find others to make requests for them (link).
And, the requests aren't that onerous: so far in December 2010 they've received 27 requests, 16 from one person. They got just 16 requests in November. That's down from around 50 a month earlier in the year.
At least two staffers spend an hour a day handling requests for Obama birth records, a department official said. They also have to interpret unclear or perplexing requests, sometimes seeking opinions from attorneys at the attorney general's office and the state Office of Information Practices.
For example, some requests ask the state to provide a copy of the seal used on Obama's certificate of live birth, said Cathy Takase, an Office of Information Practices attorney. The Health Department has responded by sending a pencil shading of the embossment, rather than the seal, which officials say could be misused for fraudulent purposes.
The article refers to a frequent requester who's probably Orly Taitz. If they don't want her to make so many requests maybe they should take steps to answer her questions.
See the Obama citizenship page for our extensive coverage and our take on this issue. Note particularly that unlike some others I'm not claiming that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii; he probably was. My (correct) claim is simply that he hasn't definitively proved where he was born and those who say he has are lying. See that link for examples of reporters and politicians lying about basic, incontrovertible, easy-to-understand facts of this matter.
If you trust the Southern Poverty Law Center to tell you the truth - and to be interested in getting the truth in the first place - please see the following as well as the other posts at the last link. The latest example of how you can't trust them comes from "Meet the 'Patriots'" (splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/the-patriots?page=0,0) which lies about at least two of the people on the list. They also show little interest in real journalism. (Note: there's also another possible lie by them here, and there are probably other lies on the list about people I'm not familiar with).
1. The SPLC falsely accuses Al Garza of the Patriots Coalition of wanting to "[keep] Mexicans out of his country" and refers to him being "[a]sked about the irony of a Mexican American leading efforts to prevent Mexicans from setting foot on American soil". Both of those imply that Garza doesn't want any Mexicans to come here, period. Yet, Garza's group is actually in the "illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good camp", and the quotes the SPLC attributes to him refer to the illegal variety of immigration. That runs counter to the SPLC's claims. See the following page (note: this is direct link to a shockwave movie): link; that says: "The mission of Patriots Coalition is to influence the national debate on border security and illegal immigration. We support reasonable and orderly legal immigration but oppose amnesty for those millions who are currently in our country illegally."
2. They discuss Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily and say that that site, 'spices up its "news" reporting with "WorldNetDaily Exclusive" articles like this March's "Girl Scouts Hiding Secret Sex Agenda?"' Now, go take a look at the article: link. Would you say that's an example of "spice", or do you think - even if you're on Planned Parenthood's side of the fence - that there might be some sort of story there? Why would the SPLC seek to minimize the concerns of parents about such issues? Why wouldn't they encourage some sort of follow-up?
Of Farah they also say:
"He is a leading fomenter of the baseless claim that President Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Africa, and so is not qualified to be president. Farah has repeatedly demanded that Obama release a full-form birth certificate. "It'll plague Obama throughout his presidency," he said. "It'll be a nagging issue and a sore on his administration."
While there's an excellent chance that Obama was born in Hawaii, where he was born hasn't been definitively proven (see the Obama citizenship page). All the evidence so far provided is full of holes; the SPLC has no interest in trying to actually prove it, but instead simply smears those who have questions.
Their use of "fomenter" is certainly interesting, because as far as I know Farah has not said that he believes that Obama was born in Kenya. He's run articles about that, but his position is to demand the birth certificate and to ask whether Obama is eligible based on various possibilities (their article archives on this topic here). Many people might miss the word "fomenter" and think that Farah holds a position different from what he appears to hold.
3. Of Orly Taitz, they say:
As one judge wrote in dismissing one of Taitz's lawsuits: "Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."
Once again, the SPLC shows a great willingness to push the official line and a complete unwillingness to do anything remotely balanced. If they were interested in the latter, they would point out that the judge in question (Clay Land) showed a good deal of bias in that case, giving Obama the benefit of the doubt while not extending the same to Taitz. I don't have a high regard for Taitz, but even those who don't should support judges being impartial rather than showing favoritism.
The SPLC also says: "Taitz has called for an insurrection to remove the president", when in fact she didn't go that far. Before making such an outrageous claim, a reputable organization would be sure to have a clear, unambiguous statement backing it up. Instead, even TalkingPointsMemo was confused over what she meant. See "Orly Taitz Seems To Suggest Call To Arms Against Obama" in which they say: "It's not entirely clear what Taitz means here, though it does sound a lot like a call for armed militias to rally against the president." (link). This is the quote, aren't there other explanations besides the SPLC's claim?
Seeing targeted destruction of our economy, our security, dissipation of American jobs, massive corruption in the Government, Congress Department of Justice and Judiciary, it might be time to start rallies and protests using our second amendment right to bare arms and organise in militias.
4. Rep. Michelle Bachmann lucks out and is only called an "enabler" of the others on the list. Of her they say:
While some people might complain about answering Census questions, Bachmann sees a sinister plot hearkening back to World War II. "They used the U.S. Census information to round up the Japanese and put them in the internment camps," she said during an interview with Fox News' Glenn Beck last year. "Americans were told that they wouldn't have their information used against them. They did."
Whether Bachmann's fears are well-founded in this case or not, Census Bureau data was used in the case she describes and others (link). See also July 30, 2004's "Homeland Security Given Data on Arab-Americans" (link) from the scaremongers at the New York Times.
They also say:
The AmeriCorps community service program? There's much more to it. "The real concern is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward," Bachmann warned. Never mind that her son joined an AmeriCorps program.
You can hear the April 2009 audio where she said that here: peekURL.com/vghoc7w . The SPLC conveniently leaves off the last part of the quote:
"It's under the guise of -- quote -- volunteerism. But it's not volunteers at all. It's paying people to do work on behalf of government... I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums."
Indeed, it's hard to imagine the Obama administration supporting programs that wouldn't be politically correct, and it's easy to imagine the Obama administration arranging programs so that they're more in line with the administration's agenda. Not to mention the fact that the bill in question originally included a provision to investigate mandatory public service (factcheck.org/2009/03/mandatory-public-service) and the November 2008 questions surrounding that issue.
Seema Mehta of the Los Angeles Times brings word (link) that Orly Taitz has been disinvited from a tea parties event in Pleasanton on Thursday. And, that was done after politicians who were to appear at the event complained. Taitz is a piece of work, so it's perfectly understandable why Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore wouldn't want to share a stage with her (even if they say they had nothing to do with her being booted from the event).
That said, this bit from Seema Mehta's article jumps out (bolding added):
Taitz is best known for her crusade to prove Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, a falsehood that sprang to life during the 2008 presidential campaign and that most voters and mainstream Republicans reject. But she has also been creating waves in the state Republican Party.
In order for what Taitz claims to be a "falsehood", the claim that Obama was not born in Kenya would need to have been definitively proven. While there's an excellent chance that he was in fact born in Hawaii, all of the evidence so far provided does not add up to definitive proof: all of that evidence has various flaws.
That doesn't mean that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii, it just means that it hasn't been definitively proven. To say otherwise would be to engage in childlike thinking, pretending that just because FactCheck says something it must be true, despite the fact that they've been caught in lies about this and other issues.
And, to say otherwise would be to assist a useful fiction, that where Obama was born has been definitively proven. The establishment works night and day to smear anyone who has any questions - just as they smear those who have reasonable questions about 911 - but that doesn't make their claims true. On the other hand, just because they doth protest too much doesn't mean that they're trying to cover something up, but it's not helping.
As for Seema Mehta, I invite her to list below what she considers definitive proof. Then, I'll show you (and hopefully her readers) why she's wrong.
The Anti Defamation League has a new report entitled "Rage Grows in America: Anti‑Government Conspiracies", which contains at least one major lie. And, it's a lie that you probably won't hear anyone else discuss, namely the one in the section about the "Birther" movement (adl.org/special_reports/rage-grows-in-America/birther-movement.asp):
Despite the fact that government officials in Hawaii and non-partisan groups have all authenticated Obama's birth certificate, the “birther” movement continues to gain adherents.
1. Government officials in Hawaii admit that they've never authenticated the picture on Obama's site that the ADL is referring to; the ADL is lying. The most any official has said is that he was born there, but she gave no further details (other than her AG-reviewed claim that he was a "natural-born American citizen"). None of that is an authentication of the only "certificate" that we've seen, and what we've seen is actually just a "Certification of Live Birth".
2. The only "non-partisan group" that claims to have seen an actual paper copy is FactCheck. As can be seen at the link, they aren't a credible organization and they certainly don't act too very "non-partisan". The most other organizations claim to have seen is what we've all seen: pictures. And, the persons from Fact Check who claim to have seen the document were just their - per them - "staffers"; they didn't call in document experts. Several other issues with the Fact Check "authentication" are listed here; note that Fact Check falsely claimed that Hawaiian officials had said he was born there since November of last year, when in fact the statement from those officials was ambiguous, with the ambiguity only being resolved in late July of this year. In other words, Fact Check lied to their readers for around nine months.
Yet another Orly Taitz "Birther" lawsuit has failed; Dave Weigel crows about it here. Leaving aside all the many other factors of this story, judge David Carter of the Central District of California in his ruling (link) made a false assumption that shows either bias or inability to understand the fine points of this issue. He says (bolding added):
More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the President has not shown that he is a "natural born citizen" of the United States and assert that he should have to establish his citizenship by "clear-and-convincing evidence". Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence to show that the President was actually born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be President.
In fact, Obama hasn't "produced" anything beyond putting a picture of an alleged Certification of Live Birth on his web site. Further, it's not a "birth certificate", it's a "COLB". Ask yourself: would the judge give you the same leeway? If you were appearing before him and had to provide a document, would he accept a picture on a website in lieu of the actual document? Wouldn't he require the document to be authenticated by the issuing agency? Not only has Obama just shown a picture instead of the apparent underlying document, but Hawaii has not authenticated that picture. The judge is giving Obama a great deal of the benefit of the doubt, calling into question his integrity or his ability to understand that sometimes an alleged picture of an object and the object itself are different.
UPDATE: Despite what you might read in the comments, Hawaii has not authenticated the picture on Obama's site; there's a link right in the post above. They have not "authenticated his birth certificate" either. The most they've done is issue this statement. Note that she doesn't say anything about the picture on Obama's site.
Also, Obama never showed the supposed physical certification to Politifact, and there are several problems with the FactCheck posting on this, including the fact that they were lying to people for about eight months. See the main page at Obama citizenship, and see this page from over a year ago for more issues with the Fact Check posting.
Ask yourself: if this issue is as cut-and-dried as Obama cultists would have you believe, why do those Obama cultists - whether sockpuppets or MSM reporters - have to keep lying about the basic facts of this matter?
Liza Mundy of the Washington Post offers "Burden of Proof on Obama's Origins" (link), a three-screen, mostly smear piece on Orly Taitz of the "Birthers" movement. Leaving aside Taitz' various claims, Mundy has a problem with the truth. (Note that she's also the author of a presumably sympathetic biography of Michelle Obama; she whines about the lack of cooperation from the Obama camp at slate.com/id/2202261).
Mundy quotes Taitz as saying of Obama's records "Nobody has seen proper documents. Period." and follows that with this:
Another breathtaking statement, or rather misstatement. After initially trying to ignore the controversy, Obama's staff has indeed provided an official record showing that the president was born in Hawaii. The document is a computer-generated official certification of live birth attesting to the fact that Barack Hussein Obama II was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. The director of Hawaii's Department of Health also has stated, rather wearily, that she has viewed the underlying vital records and that they are valid.
All Obama has provided is a picture of what looks to be an official document; he hasn't provided the document itself as Lisa Munday states. The picture has never been authenticated by any government agency, and thus there's no proof that anything on it is accurate. While Chiyome Fukino of the Hawaii Department of Health did say in 2008 "the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures" and then in July she said that she's "seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen", she didn't say anything about the picture on Obama's site, as Mundy is implying.
Mundy also (of course) plays the race card and the extremist card:
At a minimum, organizations who monitor extremist groups say that the fantasy of Obama's ineligibility is now a central tenet. "The birther conspiracy itself is now totally widespread among military and paramilitary [militia] groups and new, what we would call quote-unquote 'patriot' groups, which are groups that are virulently anti-government," says Heidi Beirich, director of research at the Southern Poverty Law Center. Beirich says that a popular conspiracy theory among such groups is that the government is going to round up citizens and put them in camps operated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
A letter filed Friday and signed Capt. Connie Rhodes, who filed a complaint Sept. 4 in U.S. District Court that sought to stop her deployment to Iraq by arguing that President Barack Obama can’t legitimately hold office, states that she never authorized her attorney to appeal a Wednesday ruling against her.
Additionally, Judge Clay Land - who denied Rhodes’ request and threatened sanctions against her lawyer, Orly Taitz, a national figure in the “birther” movement - states that Taitz has two weeks from Friday to explain why he shouldn’t impose a $10,000 penalty against the California lawyer.
The phone number on the FAX apparently from Rhodes had a time of 13:58 and the phone number on the FAX belonged to a Georgia OfficeMax. However, that store apparently claims such a FAX was never sent from their store at that time, and others point out that the signature block on the FAX looks odd. The person who looked into the first is Larry Sinclair, so obviously this has to be approached with caution. However, a direct link to the audio interview he conducted with that store is here, a discussion of his story is here, and speculation about whether the letter is a forgery is here. See, for instance, comment #102 at that last thread where someone says that the 13:58 could be the time when the FAX was printed by the court's machine, with the FAX having been transmitted earlier. And, of course, there are many other explanations.
So, at this point in time this post is just for entertainment purposes, and also because if it turns out to be accurate it might be interesting.
9/21/09 UPDATE: Now, Sinclair says that he spoke to two court clerks:
[One of the clerks] Mr. Frost stated that after speaking with his boss and the acquaintance assuring the Court an original would be sent after Capt. Rhodes arrives in Iraq, the court accepted the document... I believe Mr. Frost has confirmed for me that the letter was in fact prepared by the "acquaintance" and not Capt. Connie Rhodes...
The letter itself references speaking with a "Tim", Frost's first name.
Judge Clay Land - the same judge who earlier dismissed a similar case filed by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook - has rejected another request for restraining order from a medical doctor and Army officer and threatened sanctions against attorney Orly Taitz if she files any future "frivolous" actions with his court.
Leaving aside all of the many other issues, Land appears to have clearly shown pro-Obama bias, or at least given him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't give to Taitz. While Obama supporters, the mainstream media, and some in the GOP will certainly disagree, if a judge is going to give the benefit of the doubt to one party, he should give the same benefit of the doubt to another, right?
[UPDATE ADDED BELOW]
Kitty Pilgrim of CNN lies, smears over Obama certificate issue (John Avlon and Errol Louis lie) - 07/20/09
On the video from CNN at dailykostv.com/w/001945, Kitty Pilgrim attempts to "debunk" the Obama citizenship issue and shows that she's simply a dissembling mainstream media hack. The discussion features Orly Taitz and Alan Keyes on one side, and John Avlon and Errol Louis on the other. Rather than trying to get the facts of the matter, Pilgrim persistently engages in mockery, as do Avlon and Louis.
Pilgrim first leads off with a summary of the issue; here are the problems with what she says:
* She refers to Obama's "birth certificate", saying it shows he was born in Hawaii. See this for why that's misleading.
* She says the Hawaiian governor (Linda Lingle) and other officials have "backed that up". She's lying; see the only statement they've released. That statement doesn't say where Obama was born, nor does it verify that what they have on file matches what's shown on his site.
* She references the two newspaper announcements, without mentioning that neither indicated where or in which hospital Obama was born and without mentioning that no one has ever provided proof that those announcements could have only come from Obama's birth hospital.
After Pilgrim's stock and highly misleading intro, Keyes states basic, non-conspiratorial facts about this case and then Taitz mentions the Hawaiian state law that allows those born outside Hawaii to get valid Hawaiian birth certificates.
The remainder of the segment is simply childish mockery, as Pilgrim smirks at the mention of the Hawaiian law (!) and then Louis and Avlon do nothing more than fill space with smears. None of the three even attempt to make any sort of counter-argument.
If you want to do something about this, leave comments on future entries here: thedailybeast.com/author/john-avlon
UPDATE: Avlon offers a recap of his appearance at thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-20/the-obama-haters-next-move. In addition to a disreputable smear of Taitz, he lies:
Before going on air, Keyes had his eyes closed as if in prayer while Taitz was jumpy and pie-eyed, like a patient off her meds. Anchor Kitty Pilgrim then went through a thorough 3-1/2 minute dismantling of the Birther arguments, including the long-ago issuance of Obama’s August 1961 certificate of live birth, its validation by Hawaii’s Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, and two birth announcements published in Honolulu papers. (Both FactCheck.org and Snopes have published detailed investigations and refutations of the non-scandal.)
His "certificate of live birth" was never "validated" by Lingle. FactCheck isn't credible; see the links above. Snopes can't get their story straight on which hospital Obama was born in. (UPDATE: Also, it's a picture of a "certification of live birth", not a "certificate").
UPDATE 2: I misspelled his name as "Jon Avlon", now corrected.
7/24/09 UPDATE: I'm still trying to get the state of Hawaii to confirm this and to let me know whether they'll be asking CNN for a correction. The only thing I've received so far is the following form letter in which they indicate that it would be against their laws for her to verify that Obama was born there:
7/24/09 UPDATE: Errol Louis has moved on from just content-free ridicule to outright lying, offering "Obama's critics launch the birth of a nutty nation" (link):
The candidate's official Hawaii birth certificate was posted online, its authenticity vouched for by Hawaii officials up to and including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle (who supported Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain)... The archives show that two different Hawaii newspapers, The Honolulu Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin, printed Obama's birth announcement in 1961... Exactly why Obama's family and/or Hawaii hospitals would take the trouble to place false notices 47 years ago is never explained.
Like Pilgrim, he's lying: Lingle never said Obama was born there. The announcements part was dealt with above; note the stock strawman argument in which he fails to come up with other explanations for those announcements.
Birthers denounce the notion that Obama was born in Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, despite court rulings and statements by Fukino and Hawaii's Republican governor, Linda Lingle.
The letter from Lingle follows: