Coop's Corner
February 6, 2010 12:10 PM

Birther in Hot Water at Tea Party Meet

By
Charles Cooper
Topics
In The News
Attending the Tea Party Convention in Nashville this weekend, The Washington Independent's always-excellent David Weigel recounts an extraordinary hallway confrontation between online publisher Andrew Breitbartand WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah over the question of President Obama's citizenship. (Here's the video of his speech, courtesy of C-SPAN. It follows Angela McGlowan's pep talk, starting at the 12.10 mark.)

During his speech, Farah said he hoped that Mr. Obama would not be able to go into any city without seeing signs asking about his bith certificate. "It's a simple question but it hasn't been answered," he said, adding that "it's one of the most important questions that we can be asking."

Following the speech, Farah was cornered by Weigel, who informed him that Breitbart had dismissed the birther argument as a losing political argument. When Breitbart later walked by, Farah insisted that it was "a winning issue." (You can read the entire article but I want to reproduce this verbatim snippet.)

"It's not a winning issue."

"It is! It becomes even more of a winning issue when the press abrogates its responsibility–"

"You don't recognize it as a fundamentally controversial issue that forces a unified group of people to have to break into different parts? It is a schism of the highest order."

"Nothing exposes the president's–"

"Then prove it!"

"The press isn't asking the question–"

"Prove it!"

"Prove what?"

"Prove your case."

"I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?" Farah had gotten irritated. "That's ridiculous. You don't even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It's not about proving things. It's about asking questions and seeking truth."

Breitbart tensed up after that insult. "Right."

"I know you're not a journalist, so that's fine. But don't diminish people who've been doing this for 35 years."

"So you're going to go on record saying that I'm not a journalist?"

"Are you? I've never heard you claim to be. Are you?"

"I'll let it be answered by you."

"Well, I knew [Matt]Drudge didn't consider himself a journalist, so I assumed that you were. … I don't know, I'm not trying to insult you."

"You did."

  • Charles Cooper is an executive editor at CNET News. He has covered technology and business for more than 25 years, working at CBSNews.com, the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie.

Add a Comment See all 366 Comments
by ianlou February 19, 2010 3:26 PM EST
I don't understand why this "birther" was not welcomed at the Tea Party.

I thought this gathering was intended to be an all inclusive Right- Wing Nut-Job Hootenanny!
Reply to this comment
by forseti1 February 14, 2010 1:39 PM EST
Many people justify their opinions with the facts and the law, whereas others do not let the facts and the law get in the way of their reasoning. Which one are you? If you are one of those people out there who thinks that the birthers are nuts, then let?s consider something that is not nuts ? which one of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President regarding his Article II eligibility? Is it by a preponderance of evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? How about by beyond a reasonable doubt?

Once you decide which one applies, and you must pick one if your argument is to be credible, then consider this before drawing a conclusion ? Although Hawaii calls the posted Certification of Live Birth an ?official? birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of Obama?s birth, five of which arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud.

Does anyone know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? Barack won?t tell. Was it the one with a doctor?s signature and hospital documentation, or was it from one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC? Consider this hypo ? state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an ?official? scant summary of the ?original? birth certificate.? The issue is, do you trust that summary? You can read the actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961 at birther.com that would have allowed for such a thing to happen.

To date, not one single solitary person in the three branches of government has bothered to subject Obama?s 1961 vital record to any meaningful scrutiny. Furthermore, they have not even identified which burden of proof was applied to reach their conclusions. They have instead chosen to accept his posted Certification of Live Birth, a summary, as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace simply because it reads -?Born in Hawaii.? It reminds me of someone who tells another, ?Because I say so.?

Now, for those on the Left who like to pretend that the birthers believe that the Hawaii newspaper birth announcement was planted so Obama could run for president 47 years later. Nobody on either side of the fence really believes that scenario. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive ? the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack?s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger. Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the Hawaii newspaper announcement is not reliable or trustworthy evidence either.

On a closing note, assuming arguendo, that Obama is completely barred from getting a copy of his original 1961 birth certificate, what prevents him from either admitting or denying that his 1961 vital record on file at the DOH Hawaii is the one with a doctor?s signature and supporting hospital documentation?
Reply to this comment
by outrider4 February 10, 2010 6:45 PM EST
No taxes, no USA.
Reply to this comment
by outrider4 February 10, 2010 6:37 PM EST
The Tea Party, Sahara Palin, birthers, etc. are nothing but red herrings planted by neocons and publicized by the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's weapon of mass destruction.

Red herrings are inserted into discussions to sidetrack the discussion. The red herring is invariably irrelevant and frequently emotionally charged. One?s opponents in the discussion go after the red herring instead of the issue that if being argued. Neocon think tanks incorporated it into the Republican arsenal of distractive tactics - when losing an argument, change the subject if you can.

The phrase arose from the practice of distracting hunting dogs by dragging a smelly, salt-cured herring across the trail of the animal they were pursuing.

Don't be manipulated. The neocons within the Republican Party are the primary targets. Media moguls and mega corporations that seek to use us to create their power and wealth are the real threats.
Reply to this comment
by Funky-President February 10, 2010 12:25 PM EST
In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding. (The same is true of the Alaska plebiscite). Niether one is legally a state under international Treaty and US laws.

There no need to take down the post today CBS. Take it up with the UN, former President Clinton and the DOJ if you are in disagreement. I voted for obama but this very well documented leagal issue affects both Obama and Palin equally and should put the birther arguement to rest.

By annexing Hawaii without a treaty, then stationing military forces on the islands, the US, while a belligerent nation in wartime, committed an unprovoked incursion into a neutral nation and established military forces there. This is what Hitler did across Europe and Japan did in China. This is an act of war under anyone's laws.

Following WW2, Hawaii was placed on the list of non self-governing territories by the United Nations, with the United States as trustee, under Article 73. Under Article 73 of the UN charter, the status of a territory can only be changed by a special vote, called a plebiscite, held among the inhabitants of the territory. That plebiscite is required to have three choices on the ballot. The first choice is to become a part of the trustee nation. In Hawaii's case that meant to become a state. The second choice was to remain a territory. And the third choice, required by article 73 of the UN Charter, was the option for independence. For Hawaii, that meant no longer being a territory of the United States and returning to being an independent sovereign nation.

In 1959 Hawaii's plebiscite vote was held, and again, the United States government bent the rules. The plebiscite ballot only had the choice between statehood and remaining a territory. No option for independence appeared on the ballot as was required under the UN charter. Cheated out of their independence yet again, Hawaiians voted for the lesser of two evils and became the 50th state.

The history of Hawaii's transition from sovereign nation to a state of the United States is a history of crime after crime after crime, of policy put forward by proclamation and reinforced by American weapons of war, of military incursion, of violations of international law and treaties then in effect. None of the events which turned Hawaii from a sovereign nation into a part of the US was legal and above board. It was robbery, by anyone's definition of the word, with the justifications and excuses made up after the fact to make the affair palatable to an American public that still wanted to view its government as fair, just, and honorable.

In 1988, a study by the United States Justice Department concluded that Congress did not have the authority to annex Hawaii by joint resolution. The ersatz annexation was a cover for the military occupation of the Hawaiian islands for purposes related to the Spanish American war.

On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty. The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. There is no argument that can change that fact.

United States Public Law 103-150, despite its polite language, is an official admission that the government of the United States illegally occupies the territory of the Hawaiian people.

In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding. (The same is true of the Alaska plebiscite).

In a world where nations are as governed by laws as are men, Hawaii is not and has never legally been a part of the United States.

source:
"whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.html"
Reply to this comment
by Funky-President February 9, 2010 4:48 PM EST
The post police need to be the fact checking police.
Thanks for taking down my posts!
They are relevant to the discussion, are factual, and quite valid. Check for your self. Hawaii and Alsaska are not leagally states!
"whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.html"

Following WW2, Hawaii was placed on the list of non self-governing territories by the United Nations, with the United States as trustee, under Article 73. Under Article 73 of the UN charter, the status of a territory can only be changed by a special vote, called a plebiscite, held among the inhabitants of the territory. That plebiscite is required to have three choices on the ballot. The first choice is to become a part of the trustee nation. In Hawaii's case that meant to become a state. The second choice was to remain a territory. And the third choice, required by article 73 of the UN Charter, was the option for independence. For Hawaii, that meant no longer being a territory of the United States and returning to being an independent sovereign nation.

In 1959 Hawaii's plebiscite vote was held, and again, the United States government bent the rules. The plebiscite ballot only had the choice between statehood and remaining a territory. No option for independence appeared on the ballot as was required under the UN charter. Cheated out of their independence yet again, Hawaiians voted for the lesser of two evils and became the 50th state.

The history of Hawaii's transition from sovereign nation to a state of the United States is a history of crime after crime after crime, of policy put forward by proclamation and reinforced by American weapons of war, of military incursion, of violations of international law and treaties then in effect. None of the events which turned Hawaii from a sovereign nation into a part of the US was legal and above board. It was robbery, by anyone's definition of the word, with the justifications and excuses made up after the fact to make the affair palatable to an American public that still wanted to view its government as fair, just, and honorable.

In 1988, a study by the United States Justice Department concluded that Congress did not have the authority to annex Hawaii by joint resolution. The ersatz annexation was a cover for the military occupation of the Hawaiian islands for purposes related to the Spanish American war.

On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty. The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. There is no argument that can change that fact.

United States Public Law 103-150, despite its polite language, is an official admission that the government of the United States illegally occupies the territory of the Hawaiian people.

In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding. (The same is true of the Alaska plebiscite).

In a world where nations are as governed by laws as are men, Hawaii is not and has never legally been a part of the United States.
Reply to this comment
by MNBantisbanned February 8, 2010 7:42 PM EST
I do notice another 15 emails deleted from this blog. The email police are busy here.
Reply to this comment
by Funky-President February 9, 2010 4:51 PM EST
They remove them if they don't have time to check out if they have any truth to them Such as Hawaii and Alaska not leagally being states. "whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.html"
by outrider4 February 10, 2010 4:26 PM EST
Who is Funky-President? Is he trustworthy? What are his biases and preferences? What were his motives for making the claims contained therein? I would like to know more about the commentator before I take the time to check his authorities?
by MNBantisbanned February 8, 2010 7:41 PM EST
So who complained or was it a corporate thing? I think it is odd that they would take the time to go through 2000 emails and delete them. What was the specific complaint? Of course there are other news outlets to go too. you will probably finding me trolling youtube for awhile now.
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 February 8, 2010 7:18 PM EST
"Alan Keyes holds the same values and ideals as Martin Luther King Jr."
==========================================

Alan Keyes is a war protestor ?

Martin Luther King Jr. said,

"And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak not now of the soldiers of each side, not of military government in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution until some attempt is made to know these people and hear their broken cries. Now let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945, after a combined French and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little known fact, these people declared themselves independent in 1945, they quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom. And yet our government refused to recognize, President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we failed victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought eight long, hard, brutal years, trying to reconquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the United States of America, it came to the point that we were meeting more than 80% of the war cost. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954, a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that and even after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face the sad fact that our government sought in a real sense to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem, who turned out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all opposition, people were brutally murdered merely because they raised their voices against the brutal policies of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States influence, and then by increasing numbers of United States troops, who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in Vietnam today? It's a man by the name of General Ky, who fought with the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life is Hitler. This is who we're supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government, and the press generally, won't tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told."
Reply to this comment
by MSWFLA12212012 February 8, 2010 11:18 PM EST
Sadly Mr. King was misiinformed about the Vietnam war due to a well orchestrated propaganda campaign waged by the KGB. KGB files have shown that all the anti-war protest groups were established or infiltrated and organized by the KGB. We crushed the NVA at the Tet offensive. A former NVA General recently said they were about to surrender and were suprised when we left.
I can't fault Mr. King for his protest given the information he had at the time. If he had the info available today, he would probably have a different opinion.
As far as ruthless murdering leaders Mao and Stalin hold the records. Hitler and Pol Pot aren't far behind. Communism has killed the most people by far, mainly because they kill all who disagree with them.
Mr. Keyes will protest against unjust wars.
The current group of terrorists are left overs from WWII. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed with the help of Hitler and the Muslims were allied with the Nazi's. They both hated Jews. After WWII we went after the Nazi's but didn't go after their muslim allies, in effect leaving naziism to fester and grow in the middle east. Now we are essentially fighting the same enemy as WWII except the nazi's of WWII were atheists who were not entirely willing to die for their cause. The religious fanatics we fight today are worse they are nazi's willing to die happily to advance their goals of wiping out not just jews but any non-believer.
by erb0087 February 8, 2010 7:09 PM EST
Alan Keyes ran against Barack Obama for U.S. Senate.

Obama defeated him in the greatest landslide in Illinois history.
Reply to this comment
by MSWFLA12212012 February 8, 2010 11:28 PM EST
Illinois had no one local to run, so Keyes moved there to at least try. It's well known to locals up there that Ryan's divorce records were purposely leaked to knock Ryan out of the race. Keyes was unknown in the area and Chicago is heavily Dem. All Obama had to do was show up. He didn't even have to campaign the deal was already made. If you lived there you'd know. We Chicago natives know this it's the way Chicago operates. You learn these things by the age of 10 if not sooner when you are a Chicago native.
See all 366 Comments
.

Follow Coop's Corner

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...