Major Stefan Frederick Cook v [et. al] (RE: Obama eligibility

This will likely be my last post in this matter. It has rather become like watching a dog chase it's own tail, round and round with no forward progress.

Originally posted by whatukno
The problem with these lawsuits, and the problem with this theory is that there IS no evidence to support it.

uncritical rejection of evidence out of hand should not be confused with a lack of evidence.

The side that does not believe Obama is eligible for the office of POTUS (even though it's way too late to do anything about it now that congress has confirmed him and the chief justice has sworn him in) keeps saying they want him to either show his long form birth certificate willingly or step down as the President.

It's preposterous to give such a mandate.

That would be preposterous only in a monarchy, never in a form of government where officers are alleged to serve at the will of the people. However, it would not be too difficult to persuade me that the US has become a monarchy, as you suggest. Several indicators ARE present.

First off, no one in this conspiracy has proven that the long form birth certificate is the only valid acceptable form of identification to prove someone's natural born citizenship.

No, they haven't, nor can they. I for one am not even making that argument. There are several forms of acceptable identification one would presume, but it is reasonable to request more solid evidence in the event that the evidence presented falls short. A forged Short Form would fall into the category of falling short, as well as call into question the motives behind it's production. The short form most bandied about the internet has been shown to be a forgery, to include the presentation by your opposition of the blank form used in its manufacture. Under such circumstances, it is entirely reasonable to demand more stringent evidence.

I ask for proof. But I get opinion. I ask for facts, I get blogs. I ask for evidence, and I get speculation.

"Proof" is a grossly overused term, as I'm sure you are aware. "Proof" is nothing more than a mathematical construct. For example, there is no "proof" in science, there are only observations that fit a theory, which is subject to being overturned in the event of more thorough observations requiring a fit to a different theory. Likewise, in jurisprudence there is no "proof", only a Finding of Fact at law, supported by the weight of evidence. Therefore a demand for "proof" can never be met. Obama cannot "prove" his birthplace. He can only provide evidence. Same as his opposition in this matter. Until it is heard in court, neither will ever become a Finding of Fact.

When I do back these people into a corner about this issue, they just throw back to that tired old adage, "he's covering it up"

Likewise, the Obama Support Group, when backed into a corner, fall back on demands for "proof" that they realize can never be give, concerning things that for the most part have no bearing on the issue at hand, and then proceed to personally attack the opposition in an attempt to marginalize and silence them. It's an attempt to misdirect and derail the argument, as is the allegation that "he's covering up" by their opposite numbers. Neither argument advances the search for justice, they are but smoke screens to hide the issues.

A poster recently gave me a plethora of documents that he stated that Obama is covering up and therefore is not eligible for the job. He claimed his list was evidence. Really? A list? Evidence?

I agree. a list of documents is not evidence of anything, except that the poster can compose a list. The actual documents themselves, presented in court, become evidence. That seems to be the crux of the matter.

The closest thing I have seen on this issue to be evidence is an affidavit. Of course we all know that people lie and sometimes are mistaken. (Well not you apparently) But people have been known to falsify an affidavit to suit their own purposes.

I thank you for the kind words, but they are not entirely accurate. While it is true that I avoid lying at all costs, I HAVE been known to be wrong, on several occasions. I'm not averse to admitting that, when it can be shown that I was wrong.

So, I will ask again.

Please provide me with evidence that proves that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and therefore is not eligible for the job of POTUS. Please provide me with any laws that the POTUS has broken in not releasing every shred of information about himself. Please prove to me that Obama is not eligible for the job which he was elected, confirmed, and sworn in for.

Neither you nor I, as individuals, have a right to demand evidence be presented to us personally. That would be akin to my demanding evidence that the driver's license you hold is based on valid documentation. Only a court can demand such evidence, and make a finding of fact based on it, or in it's absence.

Be that as it may, "evidence" of the sort you seek is already out there, in astonishing quantities. For me to present it, yet again, would be nothing more than taking the bait, and diving down the rabbit hole in a distraction from the issue at hand. I have seen sufficient "evidence" to convince me that the matter bears closer scrutiny, while you have rejected the same evidence out of hand. Re-presentation will do nothing to sway those opinions already formed.

All I ask is for proof not opinion. I have my opinion. Convincing me to change my opinion by using your opinion is not going to happen.

Granted. Likewise you will not sway my opinion with your opinion that the evidence is insufficient or non-existent. I've already addressed the matter of "proof".

As the accusers it is your job to present the case that Obama is not eligible for the job. It is not my job to prove to you that he is. To my satisfaction Obama has proven himself quite eligible for the office he holds.

Incorrect. As the accusers, it is "our" job to present evidence that Obama's burden of proof for eligibility has not been satisfied, and eligibility is therefore questionable. We don't determine job eligibility. That would be up to the courts. Any further actions for impeachment, if found necessary, would then be up to the House, as you rightly observe.

Remember in this country it is Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The people that claim that Obama is not eligible for the office have not brought any sufficient evidence or rule of law that would further their cause.

Neither evidence nor applicable law have been heard in court, so sufficiency is undetermined as yet. Guilt has not been determined either, so he remains innocent, but under a cloud of suspicion, as is the case with any suspect. "Suspicion" is by no means proof of guilt, but it IS cause for concern.

I on the other hand have provided you with a way to further your rather silly sojourn into this conspiracy. A way to actually get something done about it and I am rebuffed and scoffed at.

I'm not aware of the methodology you suggested, but am willing to entertain it should I be made aware. I hate that I missed it in all the back and forth.

Of course the phrase "silly sojourn" is nothing more than a label meant to marginalize, but unfortunately that has come to be expected in these discussions. It does nothing to advance your argument, and in fact can detract from it by misdirecting your own argument into the realm of personal attack, and by putting your opponent in a defensive mode, should he choose to be offended by it.

The ones that look silly to me in my opinion are the ones that don't bring one case law, one civil law, or one constitutional edict that furthers their case.

Such has been done to death already, but until it is heard in court, it's nothing more than net chatter and barroom discussion. The people don't bring the case, lawyers do. The people only bring the concern that initiates legal activity. They have done so, repeatedly, and so far it has fallen on deaf ears.

Do you suppose it can be stonewalled for the duration, or will the people ever get a high enough level of frustration at being ignored to take action themselves? That would be a most unfortunate outcome of all of this, in my opinion. Better to lay the issue to rest, one way or the other. The outcome of this will be in Mr Obama's hands, and rests squarely on his shoulders.

I leave the last word to you. I am done speaking.